Appendices

Appendix B: Source verification and drafting caveats

How internal sources are used

• An internal guide or draft policy is not treated as a substitute for legislation, the CRPD or an enforceable Code duty.

• Internal material is used to show that the Agency has already recognised particular risks, service principles, staff responsibilities or operational responses in its own language.

• That evidence is relevant to the reasonableness and practicability of a proposed Code standard: a duty is harder to dismiss as alien or unworkable where substantially similar conduct has already been contemplated, taught or required internally.

• The evidentiary weight varies. An approved operational practice guide is generally a stronger indicator of adopted practice than a document visibly marked draft, and the age, scope, version and current status of each source must be stated.

Legal and policy status

• The Code is a reform proposal. The word “must” states what the proposed instrument would require, not necessarily what current law already requires.

• The NDIS Act and Disability Discrimination Act remain controlling law. The Code should ultimately be reviewed by an Australian public-law and disability-rights drafter before being advanced as a legislative instrument or Bill.

• The CRPD is a central interpretive and policy source and is expressly referenced in the objects of the NDIS Act. The draft does not assume that every CRPD article is directly enforceable domestically without implementing law.

• The independent enforcement body, binding remedies, urgent continuity powers, compensation and interaction with merits review are intentionally not yet drafted. They belong in the later enforcement Part and will affect final cross-references.

Easy Read status

• The Easy Read-style text is a first text draft, not a completed Easy Read publication.

• Final Easy Read should be co-designed and cognitively tested, use supportive images and accessible layout, and be checked to ensure that simplification has not removed a right or exception.

Appendix C: Questions for the next revision

• Statutory form. Will the Code sit in the NDIS Act, in enforceable NDIS Rules, or in a separate Act establishing the Service Ombudsman? The answer determines language about breach, standing, remedies and review.

• Name. Should the public title remain NDIA Service Code, or use the longer NDIA Participant, Nominee, Provider and Support Coordinator Service Code? The shorter title is easier; the longer title makes protected groups visible.

• Adjustment terminology. Should the final Code use adjustment throughout, following the Royal Commission’s reform position, while explaining its relationship to the current DDA term reasonable adjustment?

• Scope at the ART. How far should the Code govern the conduct of Agency representatives and external legal providers in tribunal proceedings, given the ART’s own legislation, directions and powers?

• Former participants and estates. Should former participants, representatives of deceased participants and estates have express standing for records, explanation, complaint and remedy?

• Contact restrictions. Should urgent interim restrictions be permitted before consultation, with mandatory review within one or two business days, where there is an immediate and serious safety risk?

• Human rights assessment threshold. Is material adverse action the right threshold, or should a shorter rights check apply to every decision and a full assessment apply only to listed serious actions?

• Individual remedy. Should breach of sections 1.1 to 1.5 support direct orders for apology, record correction, restored communication access, process re-run, interim protection and compensation, or should some remedies be reserved to serious or repeated breach?