A new definition for NDIS providers
Submission to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing
About Inclusion Australia
Inclusion Australia (IA) is the national peak organisation representing the rights and interests of Australians with an intellectual disability and their families. Founded more than 70 years ago in 1954, our mission is to work with people with an intellectual disability, their families and our members to make positive change.
Our strength is in our national representation and our connection to our community. We have a member organisation in every state and territory across Australia:
- ACT Down Syndrome and Intellectual Disability (ACT DSID)
- Council for Intellectual Disability (NSW)
- Developmental Disability WA (DDWA)
- Inclusion Northern Territory (Inclusion NT)
- Parent to Parent (P2P, Queensland)
- South Australian Council on Intellectual Disability (SACID)
- Speak Out Advocacy (Tasmania)
- Victorian Advocacy League for Individuals with Disability (VALID).
Our governance is supported by Our Voice, an official subcommittee of our Board comprised of people with an intellectual disability. Our work is further guided by our Policy Reference Group, also led and comprised of people with an intellectual disability across Australia. The Policy Reference Group members come from diverse backgrounds, including First Nations people, people from multicultural communities, and LGBTIQA+ people. They bring combined decades of experience in advocacy and direct experience of many government services and reform processes. Additionally, half of our internal team are people with an intellectual disability or family members, embedding lived experience across all aspects of our work.
Inclusion Australia acknowledges the Traditional Owners of Country on which this submission was written and throughout Australia. We recognise their continuing connections to land, waters and skies and pay our respects to Elders past and present.
Endorsements
This submission has been endorsed by the Safe Homes project team, led by Dr Tess Bright, Senior Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne. Inclusion Australia is a project partner.
The Safe Homes project team includes:
University of Melbourne
- Dr Tess Bright (Project Lead)
- Prof Anne Kavanagh (Supervision/Senior Research Support)
- Bella White (Research Assistant)
- A/Prof Zoe Aitken
- Dr Kate Mason
- Stefanie Dimov
- Dr Cate Bailey
University of New South Wales, Canberra
- Prof Helen Dickinson
About the Safe Homes project
The Safe Homes project is funded by the National Disability Research Partnership (NDRP). It investigates safety of service-for-one arrangements for people with intellectual disability and complex support needs. More information can be found on the NDRP website: https://www.ndrp.org.au/post/co-designing-the-questions-inside-the-safe-homes-project
Background
Inclusion Australia welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the development of a clearer definition of an NDIS provider.
We strongly support the Government’s objective of improving safety, quality, accountability and sustainability across the Scheme. We also acknowledge the importance of regulatory clarity in strengthening safeguards and supporting public confidence in the NDIS.
Inclusion Australia has long publicly supported universal enrolment and mandatory registration of NDIS providers as a foundational safeguard. We support the Government’s move to require mandatory registration for Supported Independent Living (SIL) providers and platform providers. Strong safeguards are particularly critical for people with intellectual disability, who experience disproportionately high rates of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation – a reality clearly documented through the Disability Royal Commission, and demonstrated in the infographic included in Appendix A.
We were also engaged by the Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce throughout their activities to provide expertise from our community, especially on behalf of those who use self-directed supports, such as the service-for-one model. This cohort is likely to be significantly impacted by changes to registration.
At the same time, regulatory reform must remain proportionate and responsive to the diversity of provider forms within the NDIS market. A well-designed definition of NDIS provider is central to achieving both strong safeguards and a sustainable, innovative support ecosystem.
Our submission focuses particularly on ensuring that highly individualised self-directed arrangements – including services-for-one – are appropriately understood within changes to the NDIS Provider Definition and throughout the registration reform process.
The issues raised in this submission are of great importance to our community, and we look forward to continuing to work with the Department and NDIS Commission to develop a registration system that is fit-for-purpose for all NDIS participants with an intellectual disability and their families. We warmly invite further conversations with the Department and the NDIS Commission about any of the issues and recommendations raised here.
A note on previous definitions
We note that in previous consultative processes undertaken by the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission and the Department of Social Services – including specific consultation on self-directed supports in February 2025 – the following definitions were used.
We provide this background because we believe the definition of NDIS provider currently under consideration must be consistent with these established understandings of self-management and self-direction.
As government refines the scope of who is captured by the provider definition, it is essential that people using self-managed or self-directed supports are not inadvertently reclassified as providers in a way that shifts regulatory burden onto individuals and families. Ensuring conceptual clarity at the definition stage will support proportionate regulation, safeguard participant rights, and maintain alignment with previous reform processes. We provide further detail on this from page 7 of this submission.
Self-managed supports
We agree with the definition of self-management previously used by the Department of Social Services, where:
“A participant … manages their NDIS funding without the use of a nominated registered plan manager. The participant directs funding by purchasing any goods or services for their disability-related support needs.”
We support the position that self-managed participants themselves are not required to register with the NDIS Commission, while the providers of services they engage are required to register. This approach reflects the advice of the NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce and the recommendations of the NDIS Review.
Maintaining clarity about this distinction is important as the definition of NDIS provider is reconsidered.
Participants exercising choice and control through self-management should not be inadvertently captured as providers simply because they purchase supports.
We also reiterate the importance of clear, accessible information from the Department and NDIS Commission about registration requirements and provider status. For people with an intellectual disability and their families, accessible guidance is essential to enable supported decision-making about planning and plan management.
Self-directed supports
Previous consultation from the Department of Social Services defined self-directed supports as:
“A way of managing supports, where the participant directly employs workers providing support; or … service-for-one arrangements, where a company or business structure is established for the purpose of providing disability support services to one individual.”
We agree with this definition and consider it important that any new definition of ‘NDIS provider’ remains consistent with this established understanding. We also note that clear communication about registration obligations linked to this definition is crucial to avoid confusion and unnecessary stress for people and families.
People who use a combination of supports
Some people and families, including those who are plan-managed, may use a combination of:
- Registered providers (including platform providers);
- Small local sole traders; and
- Flexible workforce arrangements to maximise choice and control.
It is essential that any registration rules linked to the definition of an NDIS provider, including associated definitions of self-directed supports, explicitly clarify that people and families using a mix of arrangements are not themselves required to register as providers.
In such cases, the obligation to register should fall on the individual providers delivering supports (for example, sole traders), not on the person or family.
Combining arrangements is particularly important in regional and remote communities or ‘thin markets,’ where innovation and flexibility are often necessary to secure reliable supports, including for culturally specific services for First Nations people or people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Clear guidance is also essential to ensure that the burden of registration does not shift onto families of people with an intellectual disability, who are already managing substantial administrative responsibilities under the NDIS and other systems.
Research has consistently shown that successfully navigating the NDIS requires specific skills and resources.1 Access to these skills is unevenly distributed. People with an intellectual disability who have higher support needs, and particularly those without strong informal support networks, are more likely to experience administrative barriers.
The NDIS Review similarly identified administrative complexity and lack of tailored information as key challenges. Ensuring the definition of ‘NDIS provider’ does not unnecessarily expand compliance obligations onto people or families is therefore critical for equity and accessibility.
1 Carey, G., Malbon, E., Blackwell, J. 2021. ‘Administering inequality? The National Disability Insurance Scheme and administrative burdens on individuals’. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.111/1467-8500.12508
The service-for-one model
Because this consultation concerns the definition of ‘NDIS provider,’ it is important to clearly outline the nature of the service-for-one model and how it differs from mainstream/group-based provider structures.
A service-for-one is an individualised support model established for one person, usually by a family member or trusted supporter. A dedicated legal entity (often a company limited by guarantee or similar structure) is created solely for the purpose of employing staff and delivering support to that one individual.
This model emerged organically in response to longstanding gaps in mainstream group-based services. Many individuals who use a service-for-one have complex support needs and have previously experienced significant harm or instability in congregate settings. For these families, a service-for-one has often been established after exhausting all other options and represents the only available pathway to stability, continuity and improved quality of life.
Services-for-one typically involve:
- Direct employment of staff for one participant only.
- Governance structures tailored to a single individual.
- Strong oversight by family or trusted supporters.
- A focus on supported decision-making and community inclusion.
- Close engagement with allied health and behaviour support professionals where required.
These arrangements are not market-facing entities operating at scale. They exist for the sole purpose of supporting one individual.
As government refines the definition of an NDIS provider, we believe it is important that this distinction is explicitly recognised so that regulation is proportionate to structure, scale and risk.
We strongly recommend further, targeted consultation with people and families who run a service-for-one in the drafting of a new NDIS Provider definition, consistent with the recommendation provided by the Worker and Provider Registration Taskforce Advice, which noted:
Legal arrangements and relationships may vary in circumstances where participants directly employ their workers. ‘Services for One’ arrangements have generally been set up in circumstances where the support needs of the participant are very complex and families have not been able to obtain the quality of supports they require in the open market. **Close consultation with this group is particularly important, so as not to disrupt arrangements which are working well and have taken years to establish and build up.**2
In our responses to the consultation questions below, we provide further details about how the updated NDIS Provider Definition must include explicit reference to self-directed supports, including services-for-one, to ensure that the registration process is developed in a way that is structurally coherent, genuinely risk-proportionate and aligned with the scale and governance of these arrangements, and does not inadvertently undermine the viability of highly individualised support models.
In addition, we also strongly support the recommendation from the Taskforce about developing a new branch within the NDIS Commission to build relationships and capability to support very small, self-directed supports, including services-for-one:
We hope that by creating visibility to the NDIS Commission an opportunity arises to develop a relationship between the participant and the NDIS Commission which supports people with disability to self-direct their supports. To aid in this, we propose the establishment of a Self-Directed Support branch within the NDIS Commission.3
More information about services-for-one is available on Inclusion Australia’s website.
2 NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce. 2024. NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce Advice. Retrieved from: https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/ndis-provider-and-worker-registration-taskforce-advice?language=en. Page 117. 3 Ibid., page 42.
In addition, a key implementation risk that warrants careful attention by the Department and particularly the NDIS Commission is the presence of ‘bad actor’ providers who operate at a very small scale – for example, supporting only one or two people who have large plans, particularly in ‘thin’ markets – but whose practices are extractive rather than genuinely person-centered.
As government considers how to appropriately recognise and enable self-directed models, there is a clear opportunity to distinguish these poor practices from arrangements that are established in the interests of the person. This could include indicators such as transparent ownership structures, clear and enforceable conflict of interest safeguards, demonstrated capability in supported decision-making and evidence of connection to trusted networks – whether through longstanding relationships with advocacy organisations, peer support, or appropriate engagement with the Commission. Importantly, such safeguards should be designed in a way that supports integrity without creating unnecessary barriers for new entrants or forcing formal affiliations that may not suit every individual arrangement.
Our response to the consultation questions
1. Are there supports or services missing from Table 2?
The supports listed in Table 2 broadly reflect the range of disability supports currently delivered under the Scheme, including housing, health services, allied health, community access and employment support.
However, for clarity and coherence in the new definition of an NDIS provider, we recommend that it explicitly acknowledge:
- Self-directed arrangements, including services-for-one; and
- Participants who directly employ workers under a recognised self-directed registration category.
The consultation paper emphasises that a future regulatory model will be risk-proportionate, ensuring lower risk services are subject to lighter obligations and higher risk services have stronger safeguards.
This is only possible if the definition appropriately distinguishes provider forms and how they operate.
Without this clarity, there is a risk that arrangements that are structurally different – such as services-for-one – could be inadvertently captured in a way that conflates them with group-based service models. Clarifying this distinction in the definition will support both regulatory integrity and fairness in how different entities are captured and regulated.
A definition that explicitly acknowledges self-directed entities, including services-for-one, will:
- Help distinguish between market-facing providers delivering services to multiple participants and participant-initiated support arrangements delivered by or for a single individual.
- Support implementation of a risk-proportionate regulatory model by enabling the NDIS Commission to tailor requirements based on how supports are delivered, who is delivering them, and the context of delivery.
This aligns with the Government’s objectives in amending the definition and designing a future registration model that scales obligations proportionate to risk.
2. Are there supports or services that should be excluded from the definition?
We do not recommend excluding specific support types from the definition.
However, we suggest that the definition – and the regulatory settings that flow from it – should make clear that supports delivered within certain structural contexts are treated differently in terms of registration category and regulatory obligations.
For example, high-risk supports such as behaviour support and restrictive practices can occur across different service models. In a group-based service environment, these supports may carry higher systemic risk and therefore warrant stronger oversight and regulatory obligations, as shown in Appendix A.
While there will always be risk associated with such supports, service setting meaningfully influences the nature of risk. When they occur within a highly individualised model such as a service-for-one, risk is mediated by the very nature of the arrangement (intense individual oversight, family involvement, tailored risk mitigation strategies).
A strong definition should enable the regulatory model to reflect these contextual differences, rather than making regulatory consequences solely a function of support type. This is consistent with the consultation’s focus on risk-proportionate regulation that directs resources toward the supports and settings that pose greater risk to participant safety and rights.
3. What issues should Government consider when amending the definition to maintain flexibility and responsiveness to participant needs?
We recommend that the Government consider the following key issues:
Scale and operational context
The NDIS market comprises a diverse range of provider forms, including large group-based organisations, medium and small businesses, sole traders, platform providers, and self-directed arrangements such as services-for-one.
A definition that foregrounds purpose and operational context as well as support type can enable differentiated, proportionate regulatory responses. For example:
- Entities providing supports to multiple participants with shared staffing and facilities.
- Entities or arrangements set up to support one individual with direct employment of workers under the direction of the participant (or their nominee).
A definition that captures this spectrum of contexts will better support a regulatory framework that differentiates risk and obligations appropriately.
Participant rights and safeguarding
The consultation paper highlights the Government’s interest in strengthening safeguards and preventing abuse, neglect, exploitation and harm. A clear definition contributes to this by delineating which entities are captured for regulatory oversight – enabling proportional responses based on risk and participant outcomes.
In redefining “NDIS provider,” the Government should ensure that the definition reinforces participants’ rights to choice and control, supported decision-making, and meaningful engagement in directing their supports.
A well-crafted definition will support:
- Strong safeguarding and oversight.
- Participant autonomy and control.
- Promotion of supported decision-making.
- Prevention of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation.
Towards greater administrative equity
The future regulatory model aims to reduce administrative burden for lower risk supports and increase proportionality overall. As the consultation paper notes, “lower risk services would be subject to a lower administrative burden” (p. 9) under a new model.
The definition should support this principle by ensuring that arrangements such as services-for-one are not swept into high-burden regulatory categories solely on the basis of their structure.
Ensuring the definition allows proportionate treatment will support administrative equity for participants, families and small providers alike.
4. Are there factors, other than support type, which should be considered in a new definition of ‘an NDIS provider’?
We recommend that the following factors be considered alongside support type when refining the definition:
- Number of participants supported by the entity.
- Whether supports are delivered in shared or individualised environments.
- Governance and oversight mechanisms.
- Degree of participant direction and control.
- Transparency and accountability structures.
These factors align with the broader consultation objectives of enabling a regulatory framework that is responsive to participant needs and proportionate to risk. A definition that allows the regulatory model to incorporate these dimensions will ensure that obligations are appropriately tailored across the sector.
5. Are there supports that may be disrupted or result in secondary impacts if they are included or excluded in a new definition of ‘an NDIS provider’?
For people who use self-directed supports, including services-for-one, an amended provider definition that does not clearly distinguish structural context may result in inadvertent capture of these arrangements as though they were traditional multi-participant provider entities.
If the definition does not differentiate between scale, structure and governance context, it risks imposing regulatory settings that were designed for commercial or organisational service models onto highly individualised, participant-directed arrangements.
Ensuring that single-participant entities are explicitly recognised as distinct from organisations delivering services to multiple participants will help maintain continuity in existing arrangements and preserve the integrity of participant choice and control.
Appropriate recognition of self-directed supports
We also agree with the Taskforce’s advice that self-directed supports are a key part of the disability ecosystem and that current arrangements should be preserved and future arrangements encouraged under the reformed registration model. Establishing a separate registration category for self-directed supports is an appropriate way to achieve this.
In that context, clarity in the provider definition is foundational. The definition will shape which entities are captured, which tier of registration applies, and how proportionate regulation is operationalised in practice.
Interaction with higher-risk supports
We agree that some support types, including behaviour support and restrictive practices, carry heightened risk and require robust oversight. However, we are concerned that the possible interaction between support type and automatic escalation to Advanced Registration may not be risk-proportionate in the context of self-directed arrangements.
Behaviour support and restrictive practices are likely to be present in some self-directed settings, including services-for-one, particularly where participants have complex support needs. Under the model proposed by the Taskforce and reflected in part in the current consultation paper, it is our understanding that the presence of these supports would automatically trigger Advanced Registration.4
We do not consider this automatic escalation to reflect the nuanced risk profile of highly individualised settings. A service-for-one arrangement – designed solely to support one person, often with strong family oversight – a different structural risk profile from a large-scale congregate provider delivering the same support type across multiple participants.
The Disability Royal Commission highlighted systemic risks associated with some group-based services. At the same time, many highly individualised arrangements have been developed precisely in response to those risks, in order to strengthen safety, dignity and accountability.
4 In addition, it is our understanding that the registration of an individual behaviour support practitioner in these self-directed arrangements would satisfy the regulatory obligations under the new framework, which we understand will be developed via consultation by the NDIS Commission in due course.
A definition that does not account for structural context may unintentionally blur these distinctions.
Potential impacts
If self-directed arrangements using behaviour support or restrictive practices are required to undertake Advanced Registration without contextual assessment, this may:
- Place significant administrative burdens on families who are already navigating complex NDIS requirements.
- Increase financial costs associated with higher-tier registration and compliance.
- Create uncertainty or fear of penalties where compliance expectations are not well aligned with the scale and nature of the arrangement.
- Disincentivise the continuation or establishment of self-directed models, even where they are delivering strong outcomes for the participant.
For some people with very high support needs, services-for-one provide stability, continuity and responsiveness that cannot be readily replicated in mainstream service models. If these arrangements become unviable due to regulatory settings that are not proportionate, participants may face reduced choice and fewer safe alternatives.
We acknowledge that restrictive practices and behaviour support require strong safeguards. However, the risks associated with these supports should be assessed in context, including scale, governance, participant oversight and environment.
We believe that clarity in the definition – particularly in recognising the structural distinction between multi-participant providers and single-participant self-directed arrangements – will help minimise unintended disruption, preserve participant choice and control, and support a regulatory framework that is both strong and fair.
6. Are there opportunities to ensure a new definition of ‘an NDIS provider’ supports productivity and sustainability across the care and support economy?
Yes. The way an NDIS provider is defined will have a material influence on productivity, sustainability and market diversity across the care and support economy. A well-calibrated definition can support both Scheme integrity and a stable, innovative provider market, particularly if it clearly distinguishes between different scales, structures and operational contexts.
If the definition differentiates between large multi-site providers, small and medium enterprises, sole traders, platform-based models and self-directed arrangements (including services-for-one), then registration and compliance settings can be more accurately aligned to risk and complexity. When regulatory obligations reflect operational reality, providers are better able to direct resources toward delivering high-quality supports rather than navigating compliance systems designed for structurally different service-models.
A definition that recognises structural diversity can also help preserve small and local providers, support innovative models developed in response to service gaps, and maintain the viability of highly individualised arrangements where these are delivering strong outcomes. This is especially important in light of the findings of the Disability Royal Commission, which highlighted systemic failings in some service settings and reinforced the importance of approaches that strengthen dignity, safety and accountability. Many self-directed and services-for-one arrangements have emerged in response to those systemic issues, and we believe regulatory settings should be capable of recognising that context rather than inadvertently narrowing the range of viable models.
Finally, productivity across the care and support economy includes the administrative experience of participants and families. If the definition is unclear or overly expansive, it may create confusion about who must register, shift compliance burdens onto participants in self-directed arrangements, and increase transaction costs. Conversely, a clear and well-communicated definition can reduce duplication, improve transparency and support informed decision-making. In this way, the amended definition can operate as a foundational lever within the broader regulatory landscape to strengthen integrity, preserve diversity and innovation, and support sustainability across the disability support ecosystem.