Dear Committee Secretary,

I am writing to bring to the Committee’s attention what I believe may represent a broader systemic concern regarding the operation of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission and its ability to respond in a timely manner to serious participant safeguarding complaints.

I am a registered psychologist and Behaviour Support Practitioner practising in NSW. As part of my professional role, I have statutory responsibilities relating to participant rights, behaviour support and safeguarding under the NDIS framework.

In late January, with further evidence provided throughout February, I submitted extensive documentation to the NDIS Quality and Safegards Commission outlining concerns regarding a vulnerable NDIS participant. The matters reported included suspected coercion, potential unauthorized restrictive practices, possible interference with the participant’s access to independent supports and oversight, and concerns regarding the potential misuse of NDIS funding by a large registered provider delivering both Supported Independent Living (SIL) and community access supports.

These concerns were supported by detailed documentation and submitted through the appropriate regulatory pathways.

Despite the seriousness of the matters raised, I have received no substantive response from the Commission. When I contacted the Commission seeking an update, I was advised that the matter had not yet even been allocated a receipt number. Several months have now passed since the initial complaint was lodged.

To illustrate why this concerns me so greatly,Behaviour Support Practitioners have a legislated responsibility to promote and safeguard the rights, autonomy, dignity and wellbeing of NDIS participants. In this matter, after raising concerns directly with the provider, I was advised the following day that my involvement with the participant had been terminated. As the participant retained her own decision-making authority at that time, I was unable to independently confirm whether this reflected her own wishes or whether she remained able to access independent oversight and advocacy. Regardless of the reasons for the decision, the result was that an independent safeguard was removed while serious concerns remained unresolved.

It is precisely these circumstances that make timely regulatory oversight so important. Where professionals responsible for identifying and responding to potential abuse or restrictive practices cannot have confidence that serious concerns will be assessed promptly, participants remain vulnerable while the allegations await review.

• My concern extends well beyond this individual participant.

There has been considerable public and political focus on reducing fraud and ensuring the sustainability of the NDIS. Much of the public discussion has centred on participant misuse of funding, despite the significant barriers people with disability already face in accessing the Scheme. Comparatively less attention appears to have been given to provider accountability and the effectiveness of the systems intended to protect participants from exploitation, coercion, misuse of restrictive practices and potential financial abuse.

If the regulator responsible for investigating these matters is unable to provide even an acknowledgement or timely assessment of serious safeguarding concerns after several months, it raises important questions about whether those safeguards are functioning as Parliament intended. Regardless of the eventual findings of any investigation, participants deserve confidence that allegations involving potential abuse, coercion, unauthorised restrictive practices or misuse of NDIS funding will be acknowledged and assessed without unnecessary delay.

This participant is currently the subject of guardianship proceedings before NCAT. Those proceedings have continued while there has been no apparent progress on the regulatory complaint. While NCAT and the Commission perform different functions, the absence of any apparent regulatory response has been deeply concerning given the seriousness of the issues reported.

While this correspondence arises from the circumstances of one participant, my concern is not limited to this individual. My concern is that if a complaint of this seriousness can remain without substantive acknowledgment for several months, there may be other participants experiencing similar delays while continuing to rely on the Commission as their primary safeguarding mechanism.

I appreciate that the Committee is not able to determine or resolve individual complaints. Rather, I respectfully ask that the Committee consider whether the circumstances outlined above reflect a broader issue regarding the timeliness and effectiveness of the Commission’s participant safeguarding functions, and whether this issue warrants further scrutiny as part of the Committee’s ongoing oversight of the NDIS.

Should it assist the Committee, I would be happy to provide further information or supporting documentation.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kind regards,

          Catherine Heyne

       BEHAVIOUR SUPPORT PRACTITIONER

        PSYCHOLOGIST Rethink

Allied Health