NDIA Accountability Project

Submission 92 — Name suppressed — Submissions to Foundational and disability supports available for children and young people in New South Wales

‹ PrevPage 1 of 5 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission

No 92

INQUIRY INTO FOUNDATIONAL AND DISABILITY

SUPPORTS AVAILABLE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG

PEOPLE IN NEW SOUTH WALES

Name: Name suppressed

Date Received: 9 September 2026

Partially

Confidential

Children’s education and administrative accountability

Submission to the Select Committee on Foundational and Disability Supports Available for Children

and Young People in New South Wales

September 2026

From a parent who works in early childhood education and care

Dear Committee members,

  1. The question for the final report What requires agencies and providers to review an exclusion from participation when serious educational concerns persist, a parent repeatedly raises concerns, and the information supporting that exclusion is disputed? Who checks, who answers, and who remains responsible after a referral?

My younger child receives early intervention, disability and school-based supports. Since September 2023, I have repeatedly complained about the handling of these matters by DCJ,

Family Support Services and other relevant organisations. Despite those complaints, exclusion from substantive participation and disputed records remain unresolved. I contend that the continuing restrictions I challenge have lacked a lawful basis. I have not secured a substantive, coordinated account of their basis or an effective route for resolving the outstanding issues.

Following the Government response of 20 May 2026, I ask the Committee to build on interim recommendations 15 to 17 by recommending explicit review triggers, verified records, safe channels for relevant information and named responsibility across services.

  1. The educational concerns requiring a response Two deidentified school-indicator summaries accompany this submission to the supports inquiry: Child A (two pages) and Child B (one page). They set out attendance and achievement from school records, with calculated figures and inconsistencies identified. They cover different periods, not a continuous three-year outcome series for both children.

For Child A, reported attendance fell from 97.7% in Semester 1 of 2023 to 48.9% in Semester 1 of 2024. There were subsequent recoveries, including 82.0% in Semester 2 of 2024 and 77.8% in Semester 1 of 2026. English and Mathematics were recorded as Limited throughout 2024 and 2025. School comments identify learning missed during absence. The Child B records include attendance totals that conflict sharply between report covers and the detailed register and require reconciliation.

These records explain why prolonged exclusion and unanswered correction requests matter to the operation of children’s supports. The question is what review actually occurs when educational concerns continue. The sheets do not establish what caused the changes. The September 2023 marker identifies the reference date used for the period of exclusion described here; the semester figures aggregate time, and Semester 2 of 2023 straddles that date.

Reference: Interim report, recommendations 15-17; Government response, 20 May 2026.

Submission | September 2026 PG 1 OF 4
  1. The administrative response remains unresolved My requests and complaints involve DCJ, , the school, a public health service and other non-government organisations involved in support and information sharing. Their roles and responses differ. Repeated complaints and administrative correspondence have not established regular, substantive participation or resolved the disputed records. The accountability issue is what substantive checking and review followed those complaints, and who remains responsible for the unresolved parts.

On July 2026, the principal told me that my child had been absent that week for overseas travel and the extended-leave application had not been approved. Further attendance information was supplied on August. This resumption of some contact has not answered the preceding exclusion or the outstanding questions. Earlier complaints to the education department had not secured sustained involvement.

An August 2026 access decision identified 284 pages of records but released a cover sheet and one page of substantive enrolment information. Access to the remaining records is disputed. A recent attendance update does not explain how earlier concerns were handled or how disputed information will be corrected.

  1. What needs to be checked A departmental entry records a decision to share information with police and update the school and a non-government provider. A later health-service record attributes descriptions of a “protection order” and a “custody order” to school staff. I dispute those descriptions. These entries identify particular communications, not the complete information route for every organisation.

An ADVO made in expired in I continue to seek the current basis of the restrictions I challenge and an account of what was verified.

access decisions also report that specified records sought about substantive casework contact with me and reasons for not making it were not located. One provider has described possible future input subject to its assessment; the underlying records request remains unresolved.

  1. The practical requirements A responsible officer should review continuing restrictions when their basis changes, when primary records contradict an entry, or when repeated alerts raise serious concerns about the child’s education and supports. The outcome should record the current basis, any lawful limits on disclosure, the available input channel and the review route. Receiving relevant information from a parent and disclosing confidential information to that parent require distinct decisions.

  2. Apply existing duties and address gaps DoE guidelines already address obtaining and retaining orders and variations. NSW privacy law provides correction and applicable recipient-notification duties. NDIS Practice Standards already address accurate, current information and correction. The task is to check implementation and coverage across NSW contracts, NDIA partner arrangements and NDIS services, with children’s safety, privacy, views and relevant legal requirements guiding decisions.

References: DoE Family law guidelines, 6.2-6.3; IPC, PPIP Act section 15; Health Privacy Principle 8; NDIS Practice Standards, Information Management.

Submission | September 2026 PG 2 OF 4
  1. Related issue: Working with Children Check administration I applied to renew my WWCC on June 2026. My previous clearance expired on August and I have been on unpaid leave from my early childhood role since August. On

August I was told the renewal had been referred to risk assessment. OCG has acknowledged court records I supplied, but I have no determination or indicative completion timeframe.

This experience raises questions about worker-screening administration. I do not know whether OCG has received or relied on the particular disputed service records described above. The question is how an applicant can identify and correct a factual error if another agency’s information is used.

7.1 Check source material and explain corrections

The September 2025 reforms replaced NCAT merits review of WWCC decisions with internal review. Judicial review of legality remains available. OCG describes review by a different officer who checks facts, law and policy. What accessible and timely means does an applicant have to challenge a factual error in another agency’s records, and how is the result considered and communicated during assessment?

An accurate account of a court outcome or an order matters alongside the regulator’s assessment of underlying conduct and other safety information. Correction of a factual description does not itself determine the risk assessment.

7.2 Account for renewals pending after clearance expiry

OCG’s published internal-review process covers refusals, cancellations and interim bars in force for more than six months. The published categories do not describe an equivalent route for an ordinary pending renewal after clearance expiry alone. What updates, escalation and scrutiny of prolonged delay are available before a final decision?

7.3 Report time and practical impact

The 2024-25 annual report records 3,859 individuals referred for risk assessment and 3,525 applications finalised. These annual totals are not necessarily the same cohort. They do not show median or 90th-percentile assessment times, the age of pending assessments, or how many renewal applicants cannot continue an existing role while waiting. These measures would help Parliament assess performance and applicants understand the process.

These questions are also being put to the Committee on Children and Young People. They concern administration of the screening function; the request is not for a determination of my application.

References: OCG, Internal review of WWCC decisions; 2025 amendment bill, Statement of Public Interest (judicial review); OCG Annual Report 2024-25, printed pp 26-27.

Submission | September 2026 PG 3 OF 4

  1. Eight recommendations Recommendations 1-6 concern the supports system; recommendations 7-8 concern worker-screening oversight.

  2. Verify information used to restrict participation. NSW commissioning and funding agreements should require providers to record the basis of a restriction, the source and verification status of relevant information and its review date. Where an order is relied on, record its actual terms, date and current status. NSW should work with the Commonwealth to assess equivalent safeguards under NDIA partner arrangements and NDIS regulatory requirements, including implementation of existing information-management duties and any

gaps.

  1. Require a documented review. Review triggers should include a change to the basis of a restriction, a disputed entry contradicted by primary records, and repeated alerts about serious educational or support concerns. Record the current basis, the review outcome, any continuing restriction and its next review date.

  2. Give staff consistent guidance. DCJ, DoE, NSW Health and relevant commissioners should distinguish restrictions on contact, parental responsibility, access to particular records and receipt of information from a parent. Decisions should apply the actual order and relevant law to the child’s circumstances, safety, privacy and views.

  3. Explain decisions and maintain a safe input channel. Give a written explanation of participation or disclosure restrictions and their review route, including the substance and source of information relied on to the extent lawfully disclosable. Explain any withholding limit and provide a safe channel for relevant information wherever possible.

  4. Ensure corrections reach recipients. Implement applicable correction and notification duties through a common process. Record the correction or dispute statement, who must act, which recipients were notified and reasons for any lawful exception. Address gaps across different legal and funding arrangements.

  5. Retain responsibility across organisational boundaries. Shared information should retain its source, date and verification or dispute status. A referred complaint or correction request should have an identified recipient, acknowledged handover and response timeframe. Designate responsibility for coordinating unresolved matters involving several services.

  6. Set standards during WWCC risk assessment. Provide referral notice, the substance of material to be answered subject to lawful limits, indicative timeframes or reasons one cannot be given, regular updates and an escalation contact. Acknowledge primary records and explain how disputed factual information has been addressed.

  7. Examine independent scrutiny and improve reporting. Assess whether existing avenues offer timely, accessible scrutiny of disputed source facts and prolonged pending assessments, and address any gap. Publish assessment-time distributions, pending-case age and, where reliably measurable, renewal applicants unable to continue an existing role, with definitions and collection limits.

I can provide dated source records and organisation names under arrangements protecting identifying information, and would be willing to give evidence.

Yours sincerely, A parent and early childhood education and care worker

Submission | September 2026 PG 4 OF 4