Supplementary
Submission
No 92b
INQUIRY INTO FOUNDATIONAL AND DISABILITY
SUPPORTS AVAILABLE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG
PEOPLE IN NEW SOUTH WALES
Name: Name suppressed
Date Received: 24 September 2026
Partially
Confidential
FINAL FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE
Complaint Ownership and Consequential Review in the Thriving Kids Commissioning
Model
Select Committee on Foundational and Disability Supports Available for
Children and Young People in New South Wales
Publication request: publish with the author’s name suppressed
- Purpose and why the issue arises now My principal submission addressed how information affecting participation in
children’s support pathways can cross organisational boundaries without adequate
verification, provenance, review and correction.
This final further supplementary note addresses the corresponding accountability
question:
When services and information cross the boundary between government and
commissioned providers, who owns a complaint that crosses the same
boundary?
I offer this material as lived-experience input of the kind contemplated by
Recommendation 16, which recommends embedding families, carers and people
with lived experience in implementation, including commissioning input and service
quality monitoring.
The timing is relevant. When the Committee reopened submissions on 17 June 2026,
it noted that the Government response to its first report had been tabled on 20 May
2026, that procurement for Thriving Kids services had commenced in May 2026, and
that new services were expected to begin in October 2026. The Committee stated
that the second round of submissions would assist its deliberations before preparing
its final report.
DCJ now states that Thriving Kids general supports will begin from October 2026
through non-government organisations. Targeted supports are expected to begin
from January 2027, with access through a central intake process managed by DCJ
and service delivery through DCJ-commissioned non-government organisations and,
in some locations, NSW Government agencies. Targeted supports include allied
health therapies delivered by qualified clinicians.
The issue is therefore prospective as well as systemic. The accountability
architecture for a substantially commissioned support system is being established
now.
Page 1 of 9
This note does not concern the merits or conduct of any individual complaint,
information-access process, court or tribunal proceeding. It concerns the structural
fact that one underlying support problem can cross organisational boundaries while
the mechanisms for resolving it remain divided between them.
- From “no wrong door” access to “no wrong door” accountability Recommendation 6 calls for a statewide, integrated foundational supports co
location navigation model, including local “no wrong door” entry points, shared
referral protocols across health, education and community services, and digital
referral infrastructure to reduce fragmentation, administrative burden and
duplication.
The same design principle should extend to accountability.
An integrated “no wrong door” support system should not create a wrong-door
complaint system.
Recommendation 17 separately proposes shared digital infrastructure, including
common intake tools, consent-based information sharing, service directories, referral
tracking and outcomes dashboards, with the stated objectives of improving
coordination, reducing duplication and strengthening system accountability.
Whatever form that shared infrastructure ultimately takes, the accountability question
arises now because Thriving Kids implementation is already proceeding.
A complaint in such a system may concern both sides of the commissioning
boundary: for example, a DCJ intake or referral decision, information transferred to a
commissioned provider, the provider’s subsequent use or interpretation of that
information, and a continuing service or participation decision.
The family should not have to determine and coordinate which organisation owns
each part of what is functionally one problem.
- Three accountability gaps A. The commissioner-provider boundary DCJ already has complaint-handling architecture for funded services.
Its published Managing Complaints and Feedback Policy provides that a complaint
received by DCJ relating to a service provider is generally recorded and referred to
the service provider for resolution, while a complaint concerning the funding contract
or contractual compliance is referred to the relevant DCJ contract manager.
Page 2 of 9
The same policy is based on the NSW Ombudsman’s whole-of-government
complaint-handling commitments, including “Taking Ownership”. It states that one
person or team should be responsible for managing a complaint and that the
customer should be informed if responsibility is transferred.
The policy also addresses complaints involving multiple organisations. It states that
DCJ will, where possible, work with the other organisations to ensure that
communication with the complainant is clear and coordinated, and, subject to privacy
and confidentiality requirements, organise information sharing to facilitate a timely
response.
DCJ’s funded-provider complaint framework further distinguishes between matters
generally referred to the provider and matters handled by DCJ, including complaints
concerning a provider’s handling of a complaint, denial of access, or provision of
insufficient service.
These mechanisms are important. The remaining question for Thriving Kids is
narrower:
Who owns the overall resolution where the problem concerns the interaction
between DCJ and a commissioned provider, rather than either organisation
considered in isolation?
That question should be answered in advance in Thriving Kids program governance
and commissioning arrangements.
The published Managing Complaints and Feedback Policy is marked as due for
review on 30 June 2026. Its scheduled review provides a practical vehicle for
clarifying how the existing Taking Ownership and multi-organisation coordination
principles apply across the Thriving Kids commissioning boundary.
B. Information access is not itself accountability A person may need access to records in order to understand why an intake, referral,
participation or support decision was made.
Obtaining those records may itself require a separate privacy, information-access or
review process.
DCJ’s funded contract management framework expressly excludes privacy
complaints and requests for information from the category of contracting
complaints.
Page 3 of 9
A complaint concerning information exchanged between DCJ and a funded provider
may therefore require a separate privacy or information-access process. Those
processes answer different statutory questions and do not themselves ensure that
the underlying service or participation decision returns to an accountable decision
maker for reconsideration.
Information access is not itself accountability.
For commissioned services, existing legislation already recognises the importance of
information being accessible back across the contracting boundary.
Where s 121 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
applies, a government contract under which a private-sector entity provides services
to the public on behalf of an agency must give the agency an immediate right of
access to specified information held by the contractor. This includes information
relating directly to performance of the services, information collected from service
recipients, and information received by the contractor from the agency to enable
service delivery.
Section 121 concerns the agency’s right of access to relevant contractor-held
information. It does not itself determine whether a substantive decision previously
made in reliance on that information must be reconsidered.
A complaint architecture should therefore retain responsibility for the original
substantive issue while any necessary privacy, information-access or review process
occurs, and provide a clear route back to the relevant decision-maker when material
information becomes available.
Administrative closure is not necessarily substantive resolution.
C. Correction without consequential review Sections 4–5 and Recommendation 2 of my principal submission addressed the need for a documented review where the basis of a continuing restriction changes or a disputed entry is contradicted by primary records; a related design problem is that later clarification of material information does not necessarily produce an identifiable reconsideration of continuing decisions already made from the earlier position.
The distinction can be stated simply:
Correcting the source proposition does not automatically correct decisions
already produced from it.
Existing privacy legislation recognises aspects of downstream correction, but it does
not by itself create a general consequentialreview mechanism.
Page 4 of 9
Under s 15 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW),
a NSW public sector agency must, at the request of the individual concerned and in
the circumstances specified by that section, make appropriate amendments to
personal information. Where personal information is amended in accordance with s
15, s 15(3) entitles the individual, where reasonably practicable, to have recipients of
that information notified of the amendment.
Section 16 separately requires a NSW public sector agency, before using personal
information, to take reasonable steps to ensure that the information is relevant,
accurate, up to date, complete and not misleading for the proposed use.
Health information has a related framework. Health Privacy Principle 8 in
Schedule 1 to the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW)
provides for amendment of health information, and HPP 8(3) provides, where health
information has been amended in accordance with that principle, a corresponding
right, where reasonably practicable, to have recipients notified of the amendment.
Where a commissioned provider is an APP entity, APP 13.2 in Schedule 1 to the
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) provides another mechanism. If the entity corrects personal
information that it previously disclosed to another APP entity, and the individual
requests notification, the entity must take reasonable steps to notify the other APP
entity unless doing so would be impracticable or unlawful.
The applicable statutory route therefore depends on the type of information, the type
of organisation holding it, and the circumstances in which the correction is made.
Importantly, however, none of these provisions itself establishes a general
requirement that the recipient of corrected information reconsider a continuing
service, participation or support decision previously made in reliance on the
earlier information.
This distinction is particularly relevant to Thriving Kids, where information may move
between DCJ, commissioned service providers and clinical providers.
Commissioning arrangements are an appropriate place to ensure both that material
corrections can travel across those boundaries and that, where necessary, they
trigger consequential review.
- Recommendations Page 5 of 9
Recommendation A — System-level ownership of cross-boundary complaints
Thriving Kids program governance should identify a system-level complaint owner
for matters that materially cross the boundary between DCJ-managed intake, other
government functions and commissioned providers.
Families should be able to enter through a no-wrong-door complaint pathway.
DCJ and providers may allocate individual investigative or corrective tasks internally
according to their respective responsibilities. That allocation should not require the
family to coordinate the overall complaint.
The system-level function should identify:
- which organisation owns each component;
- which matters require joint action;
- what issues remain unresolved; and
- when the cross-system matter has been substantively resolved. This would extend across the commissioning boundary the Taking Ownership
commitment and multi-organisation coordination principles already reflected in DCJ’s
published complaint policy.
Recommendation B — Published commissioner-provider escalation rules
Thriving Kids program guidance and relevant commissioning agreements should
state publicly when a complaint must escalate beyond a provider’s ordinary internal
complaint process.
Relevant triggers should include:
-
a complaint involving both central intake or referral and provider delivery;
-
a material dispute concerning information exchanged between DCJ and a provider;
-
a provider-level complaint that remains unresolved after a published or stated period;
-
a matter requiring corrective action by both commissioner and provider; and
-
a material issue concerning commissioning or service standards. Existing complaint mechanisms need not be replaced. The purpose is to make clear
how they interact when the underlying problem itself crosses the commissioning
boundary.
Page 6 of 9
The escalation arrangements should also identify how a substantive service
complaint is to be resumed where a related privacy or information-access process
produces information material to the original decision.
Recommendation C — Consequential review after material correction
Where an agency or commissioned provider receives, whether from another
organisation or from the person concerned, a material correction or authoritative
clarification of information previously relied upon in a continuing participation,
referral or support decision, the organisation responsible for that continuing decision
should review it within a published timeframe.
The review should determine:
-
whether the continuing decision remains independently justified on current information;
-
whether another organisation received or materially relied upon the earlier information;
-
whether any correction or notification should be provided to relevant recipients; and
-
whether the existing participation, referral or support arrangement should be varied.
The requirement should trigger review, not automatic reversal. A continuing safety,
clinical or service decision supported by an independent and current basis may
remain appropriate.
This safeguard should operate neutrally. It should assist accurate and accountable
decision-making whether the person raising the issue seeks access to support,
correction of information, or protection for themselves or a child.
- Questions the Committee may wish to put to DCJ
- Who will own a Thriving Kids complaint that materially involves both a DCJ central-intake or referral function and a subsequent decision of a
commissioned provider?
- Will Thriving Kids program guidance and commissioning agreements contain publicly identifiable escalation criteria, including a timeframe for
unresolved provider-level complaints and disputes concerning
information exchanged across the DCJ-provider boundary?
Page 7 of 9
- Where material information relied upon in a continuing support or participation decision is later corrected or authoritatively clarified, who
must reconsider that continuing decision, and within what timeframe?
- Scope An integrated “no wrong door” support system should not create a wrong-door
complaint system.
This note supplements my earlier submissions and is the final written material I
propose to provide proactively. I remain available to answer questions or provide
confined supporting material if requested by the Secretariat or Committee.
Author details held by the Secretariat
Publication requested with the author’s name suppressed
References
- NSW Legislative Council, Select Committee on Foundational and Disability
Supports Available for Children and Young People in New South Wales,
Foundational and Disability Supports Available for Children and Young People
in New South Wales: First Report, February 2026, particularly
Recommendations 6, 16 and 17.
- NSW Legislative Council, Select Committee on Foundational and Disability
Supports Available for Children and Young People in New South Wales,
Foundational and Disability Supports Committee Reopens Submissions
Following Tabling of Government Response, Media Release, 17 June 2026.
-
NSW Department of Communities and Justice, Thriving Kids.
-
NSW Department of Communities and Justice, Managing Complaints and Feedback Policy, Version 1.0, commenced 22 March 2024.
-
NSW Department of Communities and Justice, Funded Contract Management Framework, Contracting issues and complaints — Assessing the complaint to
determine who handles it, last updated 1 October 2025.
-
NSW Department of Communities and Justice, Funded Contract Management Framework, What constitutes a contracting complaint?, last updated 3 June
-
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW), ss 15–16. Page 8 of 9
-
Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW), Sch 1, Health Privacy Principle 8.
-
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW), s 121.
-
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), Sch 1, Australian Privacy Principle 13.2. Page 9 of 9