11.1
One of the most common issues that submitters and witnesses mentioned during the course of the inquiry was the National Disability Insurance Agency’s (NDIA) communication process and how planners communicate with participants. This chapter examines issues raised concerning communication with and from the NDIA and planners. These included:
The NDIA not answering participant queries.
No single point of contact.
The complexity of written communication from the NDIA.
Inappropriate or insensitive communication.
11.2
The chapter concludes with the committee view and recommendations.
The NDIA not answering queries
11.3
The committee learned that the NDIA in some instances was not acknowledging requests or communication from participants, their advocates and others involved in the planning process, or not responding for months. For example, the mother of an adult participant stated that:
Last year [in 2018] our request for a review of our sons [National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)] plan was totally ignored. We did not receive any communication from the NDIS after many attempts from us to get in touch. I had submitted the required forms outlining the reasons for our review request accompanied by documentation from health professionals that are active in our son’s life. We still had heard nothing even after many phone calls had been made, lodgement of an official complaint using the NDIS complaints form and contacting the Ombudsman’s office for assistance.
It wasn’t until our son’s plan was almost out of funding…that out of desperation I contacted the Office for Disability in the ACT. They were most helpful and were able to get us a new NDIS plan before the existing one expired...
11.4
The same submitter argued that ‘those working for the NDIS have a responsibility to answer participants…It is absolutely despicable that…queries from participants are allowed to be totally ignored’.
11.5
Dr George Taleporos, who appeared before the committee in a private capacity, also outlined the difficulties for participants who want to contact their planner:
I am not able to contact my planner. I don’t have their number, only my planner’s email address. When I call—I don’t have their number—I’m told that they can’t put me through to my planner. They also tell me that I can send an email to my planner. I have my planner’s email address, but, when I email my planner, I don’t hear back from them. I understand that they probably don’t respond because they’re too busy or they’re overwhelmed by the number of plans that they need to put together. So I understand that they’re overworked or stressed, but that doesn’t solve my problem because I need to speak to my planner.
11.6
The parent of one participant reported that the NDIA had not contacted the family about the plan ending, and once the parent contacted the NDIA, ‘I was told I had to have the meeting urgently or my daughter would have no funding’.
11.7
Mrs Corinne Pisanu, a mother of one participant and step-mother of two participants, told the committee in a submission that her son’s most recent plan took seven weeks from plan meeting to approval, with issues arising with communication:
The interviewing planner went on annual leave a week after the interview and didn’t return until 2 days before the plan expired. I was unable to speak to anyone at NDIS about this. My emails were unanswered. I went to the local office and the person I spoke to lied, telling me another planner who was working on my son’s plan was ‘at a meeting’ when the planner explained a few days later that she had been on sick leave and was about to start working on my son’s plan. This caused major stress for my son and myself. My son’s plan expired without any communication initiated from NDIS.
11.8
A further issue concerned the NDIA not responding to notifications of changes of circumstances beyond acknowledgement of receipt.
11.9
Others highlighted a lack of communication from the NDIA about the end of plans or how participants can manage plan gaps. For example, the Commonwealth Ombudsman expressed concerns about ‘the lack of communication between the NDIA and participants regarding plan gaps’, noting that in some instances, participants were not provided with clear information about how to pay for supports during the period. It acknowledged that the NDIA had recently provided information on its website for participants on how to access supports during plan gaps and for providers on how to make claims.
11.10
The NDIA argued that it ‘is committed to communicating effectively with participants’. Its recently published NDIS Participant Service Charter contains timeframes for the NDIA to respond to individual needs and circumstances. These timeframes in relation to planning and plan reviews, as at 30 June, were as follows:
Planning
21 days to start preparing a plan, after an access decision has been made.
70 days to approve a participant’s plan, after an access decision has been made.
90 days to approve a plan for an Early Childhood Early Intervention participant, after an access decision has been made.
Plan reviews
56 days to commence facilitating a scheduled plan review, prior to the scheduled review date.
21 days to decide whether to undertake a participant requested plan review, after the request is received.
42 days to complete a participant requested review, after the decision to accept the request is made.
Reviewable decisions
90 days to complete an internal review of a reviewable decision, after a request is received.
28 days to implement an Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) decision to vary a plan, after receiving notification of the AAT decision.
Plan variations
28 days to vary a plan, after the receipt of information that triggers the plan amendment process.
50 days to vary a plan, after receipt of information relating to a complex quote that triggers a plan amendment process.
7 days to provide a copy of the plan to the participant, after the plan is amended.
11.11
The Participant Service Charter also guarantees that the NDIA will respond to a complaint within one day after it receives it, and will make contact within two days after receiving the complaint.
No single point of contact
11.12
Some submitters expressed frustration that they did not have a single point of contact at the NDIA, with participants in some instances not given the direct phone numbers or email addresses of their planners. For example, Ms Linda Bone informed the committee that she had spoken with more than 30 people at the NDIA to resolve an issue for her son, with the issue not resolved until her boss contacted the relevant ministers:
Son hospitalised with malnutrition, abuse and neglect, everyone trying to send him back to original supported accommodation, emergency guardianship taken out to stop his return, CEO of the organisation I work for contacted the same ministers I had, then things got moving. THIS was the change, everything approved, living in own one-bedroom apartment with 1:1 support 24/7 with his choice of staff and is thriving.
My son could now be considered an NDIA success story, but it has come at a huge cost…My son came close to dying and had to endure several years of abuse and neglect. My mental and physical health has suffered, I had to take extended periods of time off work without pay and my work suffered when I was there.
I was fortunate that my CEO intervened, what happens to those that don’t have that kind of support behind them?
11.13
The parent of one participant reported that there ‘is little consistency in the answers you get from the 1800 call centre; they are often wrong and when you ask for someone to call you back they rarely do’. The submitter stated that they spent ‘1–2 hours per day in a variety of activities including calling the NDIA to get them to action an urgent issue or just call me back etc. It is exhausting.’
11.14
In a related issue, the Rights Information and Advocacy Centre submitted that it had received ‘multiple complaints from participants who never hear from their LAC until we are involved’.
11.15
The Review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS Act) and the new NDIS Participant Service Guarantee (Tune Review) noted that the NDIA began rolling out service improvements nationally from June 2019 that included a consistent point of contact for participants, and improved linkages between NDIA planners and the Partners in the Community workforce, including Local Area Coordinators (LAC) and Early Childhood Early Intervention (ECEI) Partners.
11.16
Although the Tune Review acknowledged that as at 30 September 2019, 93 per cent of participants had a ‘my NDIS Contact’, the single point of contact was limited to a contact name but usually not a direct phone number or email address.
11.17
The recently published NDIA Participant Service Charter guarantees that the NDIA will provide participants ‘with a staff member to contact so you only need to tell us information once’. The NDIA’s Participant Service Improvement Plan 2020–21, current as at 30 June 2020, further outlines that participants ‘will have a current contact name for all your interactions with us’ and ‘We will put the name of a real person on our letters to you’.
The complexity of written communication from the NDIA
11.18
Others highlighted the difficult and complex language of written communication from the NDIA. For example, Family Advocacy argued that:
…the written communication from the NDIA is unclear, and confusing. This includes the plan itself, the letter that may accompany the plan or the letter rejecting requests for support. There is a lot of jargon used that participants are unfamiliar with, there are no explanations supplied, and often the language describing support in the plan differs from the language in the portal. The letters often only refer back to a section of the legislation and this can be both overwhelming as well as inaccessible for people to be able to understand and respond to.
…If English-speaking families are having such difficulty, we can only imagine how difficult it is for those that have English as a second language.
11.19
People with Disabilities WA argued that ‘planners often use NDIS speak that families and individuals do not understand’. It quoted one respondent to its survey in its project on NDIS transition and interface issues as saying:
Planners are using legislation and ‘work speak’ in planning meeting with individuals. There is a huge gap in understanding. I was in a meeting where I said three times ‘I don’t understand’ and the Planner offered nothing, nor [did] the Support Coordinator. They just talked to each other. I felt excluded.
11.20
Kelmax Disability Services suggested that the ‘expectation has been placed on the participant and/or their carers to use ‘NDIS-friendly’ language to ensure the message is conveyed and appropriate funding is applied’. Similarly, the Australian Association of Social Workers reported that some participants believe ‘that they would have had a better outcome if they had been conversant in the jargon associated with their condition’. It argued that the role of planners should be ‘to ensure that the status and the content of the meeting is understood by everyone present…and using language that everyone can understand’.
11.21
Submitters proposed that NDIS plans and forms of communication be provided in plain/simple English, and that the NDIA provide ‘clear and consistent written communication’ about the content of plans.
11.22
The NDIA’s Participant Service Improvement Plan 2020–21 provides the following commitments to participants:
‘Our decision letters will have reasons for why we have decided something in plain English.’
‘We will have clearer guidelines and procedures so there is consistency in how we make decisions; and we will make more of these public.’
‘Our guidelines will come with plain English descriptions and more examples.’
‘Our documents will use consistent terms and definitions with less jargon.’
Accessibility
11.23
Some submitters suggested that the NDIA was not taking into account the need to provide participants with accessible forms of communication. Vision Australia argued that participants who are blind or have low vision may be unable to participate equally in the planning process because accessible information is not always available. In particular, it noted that some participants were being asked to refer to content during planning meetings that planners had entered and then displayed on their screen. The result, it suggested, is that participants may not understand their plans until they receive a copy in an accessible format, leading to the need for a plan review.
11.24
The Deafness Forum of Australia, Deafblind Australia, Audiology Australia, Able Australia, Senses Australia and Neurosensory expressed concern that ‘the people organising the planning meeting or other contacts’ were not following participants’ requests for preferred methods of communication, and also suggested:
If the reason for the contact is to arrange a planning meeting, hearing impaired and Deaf people would find it easier if there was an option to arrange the appointment through an on-line booking process. Also, many hearing impaired and Deaf participants prefer to communicate via SMS. It would be helpful to have a dedicated SMS line to support this method of communication.
11.25
Deaf Services argued that the NDIA was not booking interpreters for planning conversations, and even where ‘an interpreter is booked[,] not enough time is provided to allow the translation and unpacking of complex NDIS information’.
11.26
Orthoptics Australia reported that some participants had received plans in an inaccessible print form, with letters asking blind participants to call their provider or planner going unanswered because of inaccessibility. This results, Orthopitcs Australia submitted, ‘in deadlines and appointments being missed, causing further delays’.
11.27
The NDIA’s Participant Service Charter guarantees that the NDIA will ‘provide options so you can choose how you connect with us’.
11.28
The Australian Government has also supported the Tune Review’s recommendation that it publish ‘accessible versions of the NDIS Act and NDIS Rules, to help people with disability understand the legislative basis of the NDIS’. The Government committed to commissioning ‘the development of accessible versions of the legislation, with the support of the NDIA and in consultation with people with disability and the sector’. The Government further noted ‘that it is a human right that all persons be able to access information relating to issues that affect them’.
Inappropriate or insensitive communication
11.29
Other evidence expressed concern that planners had communicated in insensitive ways, had told participants that they were unaware of disability types, or did not ‘know how to speak to people with a disability’. Calling the Brain’s Bluff, in a submission written by a participant, indicated that in planning meetings some planners may not be addressing participants directly:
I have had planners direct their questions straight to my support workers instead of me. The workers didn’t say anything, and the planner finally started to ask me, however this was because I directed my workers to keep quiet before we entered the meeting.
I was recently part of a Summer Foundation research workshop…[where] other participants stressed that they had been in the same situation at their planning meetings where planners were not focussing on them and instead addressing their support workers first.
11.30
The issue of participants not being involved in planning meetings is discussed separately in Chapter 12.
11.31
The mother of a twenty-five year old participant reported that at her son’s most recent planning meeting, the planner upon entering the room had asked her son, “‘how was school today?’ Our son is 25 years of age! Clearly there was no preparation on the planner’s part before he entered the room.’
11.32
The Northern Territory Office of the Public Guardian informed the committee that planning conversations ‘are at times too complex and do not address the participant’s level of understanding’ where participants may have a cognitive impairment. It suggested that some planners continued to go through the list of questions for participants ‘when there are clear indicators the participant is not engaged in the process’. It proposed a review of the questions and training for planning staff ‘to ensure these planning conversations can be undertaken in a clear and concise manner’. The issue of training for planners is discussed separately in Chapter 7.
11.33
The NDIA in its Participant Service Charter states that participants ‘will experience a service that is transparent, responsive, respectful, empowering and connected, as measured in the quarterly Participant Satisfaction survey’. The Service Charter further outlines that the NDIA aims ‘to reach 90 per cent for all states of your engagement with us. This will be overseen by the Independent Advisory Council’.
Complaints
11.34
Other evidence concerned how the NDIA deals with complaints. Mr Ian Anderson, the step-father of a participant, argued that ‘Your complaint is investigated by the very people you complain about…This is a fundamental matter that needs addressing as there is no oversight authority to write to’.
11.35
One participant suggested that the NDIA have ‘a separate and dedicated service and complaints department that receives verbal and written complaints, communicates directly with the complainant, investigates and works on resolving the issues’. This same participant called for a ‘separate and completely independent body…to be established to deal with complaints about the NDIS after their complaints process has failed’. The participant argued that the ‘Commonwealth Ombudsman is failing to do this’.
11.36
Mr Mike Robinson argued that the NDIA has no known formal dispute process for an NDIS participant to appeal or query a decision, submitting that ‘Without a reason for the decision, you can’t try to dispute that decision’.
11.37
Ms Shayna Gavin, a practising physiotherapist, argued that the complaints and escalation process was not transparent, ‘especially where no response has been received regarding a complaint’. She called for the NDIA to spell out clearly on an easy to find page on its website what options participants have if they are unhappy with how the NDIA has handled something, including the Ombudsman or a local MP.
11.38
The Australian Psychological Society indicated that where the NDIA does respond to issues raised about planners, it may respond ‘with generic policy re-confirmations, statements and advice to refer back to web links, rather than any indication that action will be taken’ to change the practices of planners. The Australian Psychological Society argued that this ‘is part of a pattern of problematic communication that the [Australian Psychological Society] has repeatedly raised with senior NDIA and NDIS staff during discussions about the nature of communications’.
11.39
The Australian Psychological Society called for the NDIA to create a specific entity and mechanisms to oversight planners, or to give this responsibility to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. It argued that the roles and functions of LACs and planners should be subject to the same level of scrutiny as treating health professionals.
11.40
One submitter outlined a four month process in which a participant’s family was told that a complaint they had lodged with the NDIA had been resolved and the review they had requested was being actioned, with no NDIA staff able to explain why the system showed the complaint as resolved or what ‘being actioned’ meant. It argued that a ‘set timeline and an informed answer would increase…faith in the system’.
11.41
The Tune Review commented that the Australian Government has committed $2 million for four years from 2020–21 for the Commonwealth Ombudsman to monitor the performance of the NDIA against the Participant Service Guarantee and to help NDIS participants to pursue complaints about the timeliness of NDIA decision-making. The Tune Review noted that the Commonwealth Ombudsman will be able to investigate these individual complaints, as well as carry out ongoing monitoring and reporting of the NDIA’s performance against the Participant Service Guarantee. However, the Review called for the NDIS Act to be ‘amended to clarify the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s powers to monitor the NDIA’s performance in delivering against the Participant Service Guarantee’.
11.42
The Australian Government supported clarifying the Ombudsman’s powers in this respect, including its ability to obtain relevant information from the NDIA. It also stated that it supported requiring the Ombudsman to report annually to the Government about the NDIA’s performance against the Participant Service Guarantee.
11.43
The NDIA informed the committee that it had a dedicated Internal Review Team (IRT) operating ‘independently from other decision making areas within the Agency to enable independent governance of the internal review process’. It stated that participants are provided with information about their review rights when their plan is reviewed. The NDIA further argued that its internal review process features the following:
The reviewer is not the original decision maker.
The reviewer takes all reasonable steps to speak to the person who has requested the internal review so that the participant (or their nominee) can explain why they requested the review or why a different decision should be made, and to provide additional information and respond to any adverse information.
The reviewer will consider any new information provided.
The internal review decision letter sets out information about the Administrative Appeals Tribunal process.
11.44
The NDIA’s Participant Service Charter guarantees that the NDIA will respond to a complaint within one day after receiving the complaint, will make contact within two days after receiving the complaint, and resolve 90 per cent of complaints within 21 days of receiving them, noting that more ‘complex complaints may take longer to address’.
Other issues related to communication
11.45
Other issues raised in relation to communication with or from the NDIA included:
The NDIA not informing participants that they had a new plan or changes to their existing plan.
The NDIA not informing nominees, support coordinators, advocates or public guardians about plan review meeting dates, or not keeping records of who participants have requested communicate with the NDIA on their behalf.
Planners not explaining how funding works in plans, leading to participant confusion.
Planners providing inconsistent information to participants, depending on how they interpreted NDIS policy and guides.
Planners not being aware of policy decisions or recent changes to policy.
The NDIA not communicating to the sector about policy changes or how these might affect planning.
Plan reviewers not contacting participants for further evidence to assess their requests for supports.
Planners providing inconsistent advice on the NDIS funding iPads as assistive technology devices in place of augmentative and alternative communication devices.
Committee view
11.46
The committee recognises that the NDIA’s recently published Participant Service Improvement Plan 2020–21 and Participant Service Charter will address many of the concerns raised in this inquiry about communication—in particular, that communication should occur in response to queries, that it should be timely and respectful, and that it should be provided in a format that participants can understand and access. The timeframes outlined in all of these documents may provide participants, their support networks and providers with more certainty about when and how the NDIA should respond to communication.
11.47
However, the committee has some remaining concerns about the provision of a single point of contact for participants—that is, whether this contact will be an employee of the NDIA or an LAC or other person contracted through the NDIA’s Partners in the Community programs. Should the contact be the latter, this may add an additional layer of complexity to the communication process, and lead to information being lost or incorrectly relayed to the NDIA. The committee will continue to observe the impact of reforms in this space and turn its mind to recommendations if it considers these are required.
11.48
One area which the committee considers needs addressing urgently is the matter of accessible forms of communication. The NDIA has a responsibility to set the national standard for providing participants with accessible forms of communication. It is not enough that the NDIS website provides accessible information; participants must be confident that they will not be disadvantaged in the planning process because their disability impacts the ways in which they can communicate. The committee recommends that the NDIA ensure that it always provides participants or their nominees with information in a format that is accessible to them.
11.49
The committee recommends that the National Disability Insurance Agency ensure that it always communicates with participants and their nominees in accessible formats, and in accordance with any participant requests.
11.50
Given that the effect of the recent reforms outlined above is yet to be seen, including the single point of contact, the committee is hesitant to make further recommendations until it is satisfied that the changes are not replicating or continuing the problems of the previous arrangements. The committee will maintain a close eye on developments as they unfold and will continue to welcome evidence from participants, their families and providers concerning the impact of these changes.