Finley Coll takes his fight for a speech device to a tribunal as claims escalate
Thousands of claims just like Finley Coll’s are being fought in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal by people with a disability. There can be ‘long, crazy process’ before that happens.
Several years ago when Finley Coll began using a speech-generating device he named “Bob”, the teenager’s world was transformed.
The 17-year-old lives with quadriplegia and is non-verbal. But he is highly communicative with the help of the speech device, has managed to keep up with his peers to sit year 12 exams soon, and already is lobbying businesses intensively for a full-time job after he finishes school.
But the inspirational teenager’s plans are being threatened amid an 18-month fight with the National Disability Insurance Scheme over the $7000 speech device – a fight reflected in thousands of other cases.
Finley needs a new device and the NDIS is refusing to fund it.
“The device has been life-changing for Finn,” says his mother, Amanda Coll. “Without it, his frustration would be unbearable and none of his plans would be possible.”
When Finley’s first speech device reached the end of its life, the family provided two quotes for a new one and assumed replacing the machine would be a relatively simple matter. They were wrong.
The NDIS asked for another report, then asked endless questions. It then suggested alternative devices that were not suitable.
Ironically, the scheme was prepared to fund the rental of a speech device that was similar to the one the Coll family was trying to have funded, and the rental fees across 18 months have added up to almost the cost of a new device, not to mention the labour cost of many hours of NDIS staff arguing the toss.
“It’s been a really long, crazy process,” Amanda Coll says.
The National Disability Insurance Agency’s internal review decision stated that evidence submitted regarding a new speech device did not include the required level of detail for it to consider funding Finley’s new device. “The agency continues to work with the family to understand future needs and support them on the evidence required to support the request,” a spokesperson said.
Now Finley has lodged an appeal with the Administrative Review Tribunal to try to secure the essential device – like thousands of other NDIS participants in actions that are causing a significant backlog in the tribunal.
In the most recent data from September to December 2024, 1895 new NDIS applications were filed in the ART in relation to 1871 participants. On average 70 per cent of applications under review have been subject to changes in decision in recent months, usually the agency agreeing to settle the matter. That is the highest rate of any caseload division.
From June 2023 to June 2024, 63 per cent of NDIS decisions were varied or set aside amid 2068 claims lodged. Put in context, that means more applications for review were lodged by people with disability in just three months in 2024 than were lodged for the entire year beforehand.
The NDIS spent almost $124m on legal services in the two years up to June 2024, however this was a significant reduction on previous years. Not all of this legal expense relates to defending ART cases. The NDIA says its expenditure on briefing external law firms has recently substantially decreased.
“The rate of overturn does demonstrate that things are potentially being escalated to an ART level that could be resolved internally through a simplified process,” People with Disability Australia chief executive Megan Spindler-Smith says.
“What we would really push for is additional review levels to try and reduce the number of matters that are being pushed through to this tribunal process.”
A spokesperson for the NDIA says: “The facts are that 98 per cent of ART matters are resolved prior to a substantive hearing in the tribunal” and “around a quarter of these cases are dismissed by the ART or withdrawn by the applicant”.
“A change in the NDIA’s position prior to a substantive hearing is primarily the result of new information being provided as we work closely with participants earlier in the appeal process,” the spokesperson says.
This is why the NDIA is investing heavily in new approaches to dispute resolution that are focused on providing earlier, quicker and fair outcomes for all participants.
What baffles Amanda Coll the most is that the NDIS’s dogged refusal to fund Finley’s ideal speech device goes against the philosophy of the entire scheme, which was predicated on being cost-neutral or returning more than was paid out, through investing in the capacity of people with disability who would be supported to live meaningful lives and in many cases contribute to the workforce. That’s exactly what Finley is so desperate to do. But he can’t do it without his speech device.
“I’m sad and angry,” the teenager says through his rented speech machine.
His mum echoes the sentiments. “The fact that we’re having to go to the tribunal is just insane to me. There has been no explanation given for not funding the device. The whole process is exhausting.”
To join the conversation, please log in. Don't have an account? Register
Join the conversation, you are commenting as Logout