Office of the Public AdvocateMatteo is a young man whose support coordinator emailed OPA’s Advice Service, frustrated with guidance given to him and wanting to promote Matteo’s rights. The NDIA advised the support coordinator to apply for guardianship for Matteo after encountering the following NDIA-instigated bureaucratic processes.
A Change of Situation form was submitted.
Matteo’s NDIS plan needed review to meet allied health recommendations for support and strategies for his changing disability-related needs. Knowing that this form stipulates signature by the ‘participant, plan nominee, court/appointed guardian or trustee,’ the support coordinator included detailed evidence with the request to NDIA, including a letter from an independent advocate that explained while Matteo could not provide written or verbal consent, through his behaviours he can demonstrate his preferences and how he wished to exercise his choice.
The Change of Situation was declined.
The support coordinator was disappointed about this outcome, and felt the evidence was dismissed without consideration. He was deeply concerned that:
‘in situations like this, participants like Matteo are being jeopardised by NDIA because of their disability and lack of supports … NDIA’s rigid policies are in breach of the guiding principles under the NDIS Act (17A(9)): People with disability should be supported in all their dealings and communications with the Agency and the Commission so that their capacity to exercise choice and control is maximised in a way that is appropriate to their circumstances and cultural needs.’
Additionally, I explained to the NDIA that it is unacceptable for the NDIA to request guardianship applications be submitted for every participant like Matteo. Not only is this unfair on the participant that NDIA are endorsing the most restrictive option on their individual rights, but it is also a waste of time and resources for Support Coordinators, VCAT and Office of the Public Advocate. I feel it is inappropriate to request a guardianship application be submitted and to consider the utmost restriction on a person’s will and preferences to meet NDIA’s administrative requirements.’
A complaint was lodged with the NDIA by the support coordinator. The complaint was closed without investigation.
The NDIA reportedly stated that under the Privacy Act 1988 (Clth) they required Matteo’s consent to discuss the situation with the support coordinator (the complainant), and no such consent was on file. In further discussions the NDIA suggested Matteo could provide his consent at the local NDIA office, and the support coordinator explained again that Matteo does not use verbal communication nor have capacity to provide consent. At this point the NDIA suggested they apply for guardianship, and an email seeking advice was sent to OPA’s Advice Service.
The Advice Service agreed with the support coordinator that application for guardianship for this purpose is not acceptable, but the path forward was not clear. The Advice Service suggested attempting to get assistance from a Community Engagement and Inclusion officer within the NDIA Co-Design and Engagement Division.
* Names and specific details have been changed for privacy reasons. Matteo's story was included in the 2024-2025 OPA Annual Report.
