Community Sector Banking
MEDIA, JOBS & RESOURCES for the COMMON GOOD
Opinion  |  Social AffairsDisability

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirms less than 2% of NDIS decisions appealed by participants


Tuesday, 15th October 2019 at 8:35 am
Geoff Southwell
With over 90 per cent of appeal cases potentially subject to undue influence by the NDIA – the very body whose actions are being questioned in the AAT – it is not clear that the NDIS appeals process is at all fair, writes Geoff Southwell.


Tuesday, 15th October 2019
at 8:35 am
Geoff Southwell


1 Comments


FREE SOCIAL
SECTOR NEWS

 Print
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirms less than 2% of NDIS decisions appealed by participants
Tuesday, 15th October 2019 at 8:35 am

With over 90 per cent of appeal cases potentially subject to undue influence by the NDIA – the very body whose actions are being questioned in the AAT – it is not clear that the NDIS appeals process is at all fair, writes Geoff Southwell.

Only a tiny proportion of appeals that people with disability bring to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) are actually heard by the tribunal – the rest are negotiated by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). 

The AAT’s own figures show the NDIA is potentially using undue influence to get participants to back down or to accept lesser claims.

How many cases are actually heard by the AAT and why is it so low?

When a person with a disability asks the AAT to review a decision, they do not automatically get heard by a tribunal member. The AAT has a procedure for NDIS matters (a “practice direction”) that prescribes a consultation between the person and the NDIA. This is intended to be both less daunting for the person and more likely to get disagreements resolved quickly. In fact, in 2018/19, only 3 per cent of NDIS cases brought to the AAT were actually resolved through a hearing.

What’s wrong with this process?

The danger is that it can be very unfair. It means that a person with disability is sitting across the table from the very agency whose decision they are challenging. The NDIA may also have their internal lawyer or external legal representation. 

A person with little or no knowledge of the system is faced with the experts in the system who have both an interest and the skills to persuade the person to accept a reduced claim, or even to give up. 

In 2018/19, over 31 per cent of cases were withdrawn by participants, and another 1.4 per cent of cases were affirmed by consent (the participant agreed that the decision was correct). In both situations, we don’t know how much influence was brought to bear. More importantly, we don’t know how many of those were actually wrong in law and might have been affirmed by a tribunal member if a hearing had been held.

Don’t people with disability have assistance at the AAT?

Very few people with disability have legal representation. Most cannot afford private legal help and there is certainly not enough legal aid funding for all the people who go to the AAT. 

Some people with disability gain access to a disability advocate to assist with the process, but not all. While advocates certainly help, advocates are not lawyers, and may not be sufficiently qualified to counterbalance the presence of staff, internal and external lawyers that the NDIA may bring to a conference.

How many decisions may be the result of this power imbalance?

Up to 91.4 per cent of the decisions taken in the 2018/19 period may not be entirely fair. 

The AAT has presented figures for their cases for 2017/18 and 2018/19:

Comparison of outcomes table

But here’s another way of looking at those numbers. 

In every case where a decision is the result of a person with disability sitting across the table from the agency with heavy hitters, there is potential for undue influence. Even in those cases where the decision has been varied by consent there is potential for undue disadvantage to the person with disability – while they are presumably better off because of the decision, we don’t know what more favourable decision they might have got from a tribunal hearing.

Revised outcomes table

Only 2.4 per cent of cases are actually heard by a tribunal member. Half are affirmed, half are not. While, 91.5 per cent of cases are not heard, and may be producing unfair results because of the approach. 

The AAT has clear objectives.  The Administrative Appeals Act says: 

“In carrying out its functions, the tribunal must pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that:

  • is accessible;
  • is fair, just, economical, informal and quick; 
  • is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the matter; and
  • promotes public trust and confidence in the decision‑making of the tribunal.”

It is not clear that the NDIS appeals process is at all fair or just when over 90 per cent of the cases may be subject to undue influence by the NDIA – the very body whose actions are being questioned in the AAT.

 

About the author: Geoff Southwell is CEO of Victorian disability advocacy agency Leadership Plus. He has many years of executive experience in information technology, operations, consulting and governance with small business, government and international enterprises as well as board experience in not-for-profit organisations. He has been treasurer and chair of Express Media, treasurer of Leadership Plus and the Mental Health Legal Centre, and he is on the board of the Disability Advocacy Network Australia and the Disability Worker Registration Board of Victoria. 


Geoff Southwell  |  @ProBonoNews

Geoff Southwell is CEO of Leadership Plus.


Got a story to share?

Got a news tip or article idea for Pro Bono News? Or perhaps you would like to write an article and join a growing community of sector leaders sharing their thoughts and analysis with Pro Bono News readers?

Get in touch at news@probonoaustralia.com.au

Get more stories like this

FREE SOCIAL
SECTOR NEWS

One Comment

  • Avatar Shirley Humphris says:

    The latest trick is to coerce to the participant to close the longstanding internal review to “enable a Scheduled Review because it’s quicker and we can do it all there”. The hapless participant has now lost their right to take the earlier decision to AAT. The internal review stays open and cannot be closed without permission, and the unscheduled review can still go ahead.

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Volunteers don’t come free

Keith McVilly

Wednesday, 20th November 2019 at 9:41 pm

Disability providers unhappy with NDIS pricing

Luke Michael

Wednesday, 20th November 2019 at 5:17 pm

Morrison government unveils plan for ‘last 20 per cent’ of NDIS rollout

Luke Michael

Monday, 18th November 2019 at 2:06 pm

Advocates demand stronger targets for disability employment

Luke Michael

Friday, 8th November 2019 at 4:05 pm

POPULAR

Our royal commission is not yet a safe place for people with disability

Emma Bennison

Wednesday, 6th November 2019 at 4:59 pm

A sad and sorry history of Newstart

Luke Michael

Tuesday, 19th November 2019 at 8:00 am

Report finds NFP boards lack leadership in fundraising

Luke Michael

Wednesday, 13th November 2019 at 2:30 pm

Why Australia needs more noisy charities!

David Crosbie

Thursday, 7th November 2019 at 8:58 am

Community Sector Banking
pba inverse logo
Subscribe Twitter Facebook

Get the social sector's most essential news coverage. Delivered free to your inbox every Tuesday and Thursday morning.

You have Successfully Subscribed!