Parliament of Australia

Re: Systemic Failures in NDIA Planning Practice

I am writing to you as a Support Coordinator working with NDIS participants across Queensland. I am not writing on behalf of any peak body or organisation. I am writing because of what I am seeing, every week, in my direct work with participants and their families, and because I believe it warrants your attention.

I have been a Support Coordinator for 7 years. I work with some of Queensland’s most vulnerable people - individuals with complex disabilities, young people transitioning into adulthood, families navigating a system that was designed, at its best, to give people with disability genuine choice and control over their lives. I am raising these concerns because that system, in its current operation, is failing them.

What I am seeing on the ground

I will give you a specific and recent example to illustrate the broader problem.

I recently submitted a straightforward administrative request on behalf of a participant to change his Support Coordination funding from Agency Managed to Plan Managed. This is not a complex request. It is a plan variation under section 47A of the NDIS Act 2013. It does not trigger a reassessment, it does not alter funded supports, and it does not require new evidence. The participant’s plan runs until March 2027.

The NDIA planner allocated to this request instead initiated a full, unscheduled plan reassessment - a legally distinct process that puts every funded support in the participant’s plan at risk. This was done without the knowledge or consent of the participant or his family. When the participant’s father, who is his nominee, was contacted by telephone - at his workplace, without prior notice - he was told by the planner:

• That his son’s plan would be “slashed”
• That she was “going to slash his plan”
• That his son would probably not receive Support Coordination in the new plan
• That the NDIA is “phasing out Support Coordinators, especially the unregistered ones”

Every one of these statements is either factually incorrect or represents a serious departure from acceptable conduct. Support Coordination is not being phased out. There is no such policy. A planner does not have unilateral authority to reduce a participant’s funded supports. The planning process must be conducted with the participant - not announced to a distressed parent at his desk at work.

The nominee asked for the process to be withdrawn so that appropriate evidence could be gathered. The planner initially agreed. She then called back and said it was too late. The participant - a young man completing Year 12 and preparing to transition into adulthood - was never spoken to, never asked about his goals or his life, and was given no opportunity to participate in a process that will determine what support he receives

Page 2

as he moves into independence. The same planner issued a deadline of seven business days to submit allied health assessment reports. Obtaining current allied health reports takes weeks to months in practice. Section 36(3) of the NDIS Act requires that a participant be given a reasonable opportunity to provide information. Seven days is not that. I have raised a formal complaint in relation to this specific matter. But I am not writing to you about one planner or one participant. I am writing because this case is not unusual. It reflects a pattern of NDIA planning practice that I - and many of my colleagues across the sector - encounter regularly. The concerns I am raising are systemic:

• Planners are making consequential decisions about participants’ lives with little apparent understanding of the legislative framework they are operating within. The distinction between a plan variation and a plan reassessment is not obscure - it is fundamental to how the Act works. It was specifically clarified by the NDIS Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024. That a planner would trigger a full reassessment in response to an administrative management type change suggests either a lack of training or a disregard for the legislation.
• Participants and their families are being given inaccurate information about their entitlements. When a nominee is told that Support Coordination is being phased out, or that a plan will be “slashed,” and neither of these things is true, the effect is to undermine the participant’s confidence in their supports and their ability to engage meaningfully with the system. People do not push back when they are told by an authority figure that their options are being removed. They withdraw. They accept less than they are entitled to. That is the real cost of misinformation in planning conversations.
• The person-centred principles that underpin the NDIS Act are not being applied. Sections 3 and 4 of the NDIS Act are unambiguous: planning must be conducted with the participant, must support their exercise of choice and control, and must respect their dignity and the role of their family. A planning process that does not involve the participant in any way, that is communicated to a family member at his workplace without notice, and that uses threatening language, does not meet these standards.
• Timeframes imposed on participants for providing evidence are unreasonable and inconsistent with the NDIA’s own guidelines. The Planning Operational Guideline acknowledges that the Act does not specify a timeframe for submitting reports, and that where reports take time to obtain, the plan can be finalised when evidence is received. Seven-day deadlines are not consistent with this, and they disproportionately harm participants who are newly connected to services, in transition, or who have complex support needs requiring specialist assessment.
• The NDIA’s current reform direction appears to be creating a culture in which planners feel empowered to reduce or remove supports without proper process. Statements about “phasing out” Support Coordinators, combined with the use of language like “slashing” plans, suggest that some planners are communicating an internal culture of reduction rather than a process of genuine assessment against the reasonable and necessary criteria. If this is what participants and families are hearing in planning conversations across Queensland, it is a serious problem.

I am not asking for the NDIS to be immune from scrutiny or reform. The scheme does need to be sustainable. But sustainability cannot be achieved by planners bypassing legislation, providing inaccurate information to families, or conducting planning processes that exclude the participant entirely. That is not reform. That is the removal of rights without process.

I am asking that you consider the following:

• Whether the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS has visibility of the gap between NDIA planner conduct standards and what is actually occurring in planning conversations with participants and families across Queensland.
• Whether the training and oversight frameworks for NDIA planners are adequate to ensure that decisions are made consistently with the NDIS Act 2013, the NDIS Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024, and the NDIA’s own Operational Guidelines.
• Whether there is a mechanism for systematic collection of complaints data at the planner level, so that patterns of conduct can be identified and addressed rather than handled case by case.
• Whether the current reform environment - including messaging about scheme sustainability and reduction of supports - is being communicated to NDIA staff in a way that is creating a culture of removal rather than a culture of lawful, person-centred assessment.

I am one Support Coordinator. I work with 80 participants. But I am in contact with peers across the sector who are raising similar concerns. What I have described is not isolated. I would be willing to provide further information, to participate in any relevant inquiry process, or to connect you with other practitioners and families who have experienced similar issues.

The people I work with are not in a position to advocate loudly for themselves. That is, in large part, why they have a Support Coordinator. I am writing to you because they deserve a system that operates according to the law, and because at the moment, in too many cases, it does not.

Yours sincerely, Annette Olbertz Support Coordinator AOK Care Services