Q Inclusion Australia
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) ) Bill 2025
O
Submission to the
mmunity Affairs Legislation
Committee
Contents
About INclUSioN AUStIAliG……….ccccccccccssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssesesssessseessseseeennennnennenennenenenennenenenees 3 SUMMATY Of FECOMMENAATIONS ……………ceeeseseseessesesssesessseseeseeessseeeessesseeseseseeeeeeeseeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeseeeeseseeeeess 4 BACKGLOUNG ……….ccsccssssssssssssssssseeeeeessssssessseeeeeeeesssssesseeeeeeesessssssseeeeeeessssssssseeeeeeessssssssseeeeeeessssssssenneeeeesssseaeeneees 5 Possible unintended consequences of the proposed Schedule 1 AMENAMENCS……………ccssceeeeeeeeesssseeeeeeeseeeees 6 Ensuring civil penalties are proportionate and do not challenge the viability of services-for-one…………..006 6 RECOMMENAATION 1 oo. eee eeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeseeeseeeeeseeseeeseesseeesseeeeseeeeeeeeeseeeeseeesseeseeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeseeeeeees 7 Unintended impacts on people accessing small providers in thin Markets …………cccscecceeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeees 7 RECOMMENAATION 2…….. ee eeseseecececeeeeeeseeceeceeeeeueessceeeceeeueeseeeeeceecauauecseceeseeeeeeeeuecesceeeceeeueeeeseeseceeeeaaeeeeeeeceeeeaeeeeseeeees 8 Accessible and transparent information Qathering………..cccccceececceeseeeseeseessseeseeseeeessesseeeeeeeeeeeseeeeseeeeeeseeeseeeeeeeeees 8 RECOMMENAATION F………:escseeceeceeeceeeeeeseeceeceeeeeueeesceeeceeeueaeeceeceeccuauenseseeseecceeeuueceesesececaueeeseeseceeeeaeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeesees 8 Possible unintended consequences of the proposed Schedule 2 AMENAMENTS………..cccceccccceessssseeesesteeteeeseees 8 Withdrawing from the NDIS…….. eee ccessccesccseceeesssseesesscssccessssseessseeesecsessseesceseseccssesssesssesesescsceseesecessaeeses 8 RECOMMENAATION 4 ooo. eeececcsesseeeeceeesesssssseeesesessseseesaeeseessescesecssseesseeseceeeceseeesseessesesseeseseessseceeeeasaeeseeeseseeeeeaeaes 9 Requirements for submMitting PayMeNt CIGIMS ……… eee ceeeeteceesessseeeeseeseecesssseseesessseeceseeseseeseessseeceeesseeeeesseees 9 RECOMMENAATION 5… eee ecseeeesteeesceeescssssssseeesesesssssessseeseessssssseesssessseesescseesseeesseesceseeesseeeseeesescesesseeseeeesseeeeeeeeaes 9
1a (ee L801 (0) se S ESS SOSSSSSSSSSOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOSOOOOOOOOSO 10
RECOMMENAATION 6.1.0… cceecccceeeesteeeceessesesseseeeeecessessesseeeeceesesscssecseaeeseeesesceesuaseeesceesseeesesceeeseesesecesuuseseaseeseseeeaeaees 10
Q Inclusion Austrcio www. inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 2
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:
e ACT Down Syndrome and Intellectual Disability (ACT DSID)
¢ Council for Intellectual Disability (NSW)
¢ Developmental Disability WA (DDWA)
¢ Inclusion Northern Territory (Inclusion NT)
e Parent to Parent (P2P, Queensland)
¢ South Australian Council on Intellectual Disability (SACID)
¢ Speak Out Advocacy (Tasmania)
e 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.
ey,
Inclusion
Northern Territory
psp 7
ADVOCACY KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY 2/2,
ACT
C 7) Down Syndrome & @ intellectual Disability
Up SEM
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.
Q Inclusion Austrcio i = www. inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 3
Summary of recommendations
Recommendation 1
That the Committee consider and make explicit recommendations about what safeguards are required within the Bill to prevent unintended impacts on services-for-one, particularly as new registration categories and requirements are implemented.
One option the Committee may wish to examine is the inclusion of a right to review civil penalties for non compliance for providers operating within the ‘self-directed supports’ category of registration.
Recommendation 2
That the Committee consider and make explicit recommendations to address the risk of unintended provider exit arising from the proposed penalty framework, including by recommending safeguards that ensure continuity of supports for participants in thin markets. This should include consideration of how such risks will be identified, monitored and mitigated as the new regulatory settings are implemented.
Recommendation 3
That the Committee explicitly recommend to legislate that clear, accessible information about information gathering and information-sharing practices be developed and published by the NDIS Commission, including who information may be shared with, for what purposes, and the circumstances in which information may be shared without a person’s consent.
Recommendation 4
That the legislation require that all information relating to withdrawal from the NDIS be provided in accessible formats used by the person, including Easy Read, and delivered in a manner consistent with supported decision-making principles per Recommendation 6.6 of the Disability Royal Commission and the NDIA’s Supported Decision-Making Policy.
To further strengthen participant rights and ensure genuine choice and control, the Bill should also require that any person who indicates a desire to exit the NDIS is offered a referral to an independent advocacy service. This would ensure people have access to independent support to understand their options and make an informed decision.
The legislation should additionally require the NDIA to provide clear, accessible information to Plan Nominees about:
a. the distinction between the role of a Plan Nominee and that of a substitute decision-maker; and b. their responsibilities to support the person’s decision-making in accordance with supported decision-making principles.
Recommendation 5
That the Committee ensure the legislation enables people to submit claims through existing mechanisms, and that subsection 45(3)(3A) be removed from the Bill to enable people to receive payment of invoices where there is an outstanding request for information from the NDIA but it is otherwise satisfied that the claim is legitimate.
In the case that this amendment is included in the Bill, we believe it is essential that this be a reviewable decision.
Recommendation 6
That the Committee seek further clarification from the Government and the NDIA about why the plan variation amendment is required, how it is intended to operate in practice, and whether additional limitations or safeguards are needed to ensure plan variations are not used inappropriately to reduce participant supports. We also suggest this explanation be reflected in the legislation itself, for example, detailing the specific circumstances in which a plan can have funding reduced.
Q Inclusion Australia Po www. inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 4
Background
We thank the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee (the Committee) for the opportunity to respond to the National Disability Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill (the Bill) currently before parliament.
We strongly support the need for legislative reform to strengthen quality, safety and accountability within the NDIS, consistent with the recommendations of the NDIS Review and the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (Disability Royal Commission).
In particular, we welcome reforms that seek to deter misconduct, improve regulatory oversight, and strengthen safeguards for people with disability who rely on the NDIS for essential supports. We also emphasise that legislative and operational reforms to the NDIS must be co-designed with people with an intellectual disability and families, with their full and meaningful involvement at all stages, to ensure reforms are effective and accessible.
In this context, we broadly support the intent and direction of Schedule 1 of the Bill. We welcome the introduction of new civil penalty provisions and criminal offences, as well as increased penalties for existing breaches, which respond directly to longstanding concerns about inadequate consequences for misconduct within the NDIS market. Through previous consultations and forums with people with intellectual disability, there has been strong consensus on the need for greater accountability to deter poor practice and improve the quality and safety of supports.
We also support, in principle, expanded regulatory powers for the NDIS Commission as well as the introduction of anti-promotion orders, which are an important safeguard given the disproportionate targeting of people with an intellectual disability by individuals or organisations offering misleading information or unrealistic promises. Similarly, we support the proposed banning orders, and strongly agree that auditors, consultants and other market actors should be held to the same standards of accountability as registered providers.
We further support many of the operational and enforcement mechanisms contained in the Bill, including the expanded information-gathering powers - particularly amendments that allow the NDIS Commission to require information within shorter timeframes where there is heightened risk to participants - as well as the use of evidentiary certificates, which we support in principle.
In Schedule 2, we welcome the introduction of a cooling-off period for participants seeking to withdraw from the Scheme - and make recommendations in this submission to ensure this change is fit-for-purpose
- alongside greater flexibility in how participants can notify the NDIA of their decision. We also support the use of technology to streamline claims processes through electronic claim forms, and make recommendations to ensure this does not inadvertently disadvantage any participants or supporters.
Below, we provide a discussion of areas of the Bill that we believe require closer scrutiny by the Committee. Our focus is on ensuring that proposed changes are fit-for-purpose for all people using the NDIS, including people with an intellectual disability and their families. In each case, we highlight potential risks or unintended consequences, particularly where reforms may have a disproportionate impact on people with complex needs and their families, those who rely on smaller or niche providers, or those with limited informal supports. Where appropriate, we provide recommendations aimed at strengthening safeguards, promoting choice and control, and supporting the ongoing viability of diverse service models, including services-for-one.
Q Inclusion Austrcio i = www. inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 5
Possible unintended consequences of proposed Schedule 1 amendments
Ensuring civil penalties are proportionate and do not challenge the viability of services-for-one
While we support the overall intent of the introduction of new or strengthened penalties, we are concerned that the proposed changes to the penalty framework and statutory requirements may have unintended consequences for some bespoke support models, including services-for-one, making them less viable for many families. In particular, we believe there is a risk that families operating services-for-one could face significant penalties for inadvertent non-compliance with registration conditions, or be disproportionately impacted by increased administrative complexity and compliance costs that they are not resourced to absorb.
About services-for-one
Services-for-One describes a unique self-directed disability service model in Australia where a family member or trusted supporter establishes and manages a dedicated legal entity for the sole purpose of supporting one person with disability. Through this entity, they self-direct’ the person’s NDIS plan and directly employ staff to provide tailored supports. Families typically arrange services-for-one after trying a range of other options, including group-based supports. Moving to a service-for-one model tends to enable the family member with disability to receive the level of tailored and individualised supports they need, provided in a way that centres their needs and preferences, and includes embedded and responsive trauma-informed practices. While there is little published research on services-for-one, anecdotally we hear that this service model provides the conditions for reduced and, often, the elimination of restrictive practices.
We are a strong proponent and defender of the service-for-one model. We have seen, and firmly believe in, its ability to provide truly person-centred supports to people with an intellectual disability, especially people who have higher support needs. Many of those people and their families have had to fight hard to find an alternative to group-based disability services, in which many people have experienced violence, abuse, neglect and trauma. For many people who we represent, the impact of this trauma is ongoing.
The service-for-one approach developed before the implementation and rollout of the NDIS. Since deinstitutionalisation occurred across Australia, many people with an intellectual disability, especially those with complex support needs, moved from their family home into a group home. At the time, it was generally believed people would receive the appropriate care and supports and that this environment would support their independence as they became young adults. It is well-documented that group homes
have rarely led to better outcomes for people with an intellectual disability.”
The service-for-one approach developed from the advocacy of families living in states where their jurisdiction provided individualised disability funding before the NDIS. The families met and shared their concerns about the conditions their family members were experiencing in group settings. Together, they
1 The Department of Social Services have used the following definitions to describe the difference between self management and self-directed supports: e Self-managed is considered to mean: o The financial management of funding for supports under an NDIS plan. A self-managed participant is a participant who 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. e Self-Directed Supports is considered to mean: o Away of managing supports, where the participant directly employs workers providing support; or o Self-directed supports include service-for-one arrangements, where a company or business structure is established for the purpose of providing disability support services to one individual. More information is available here: https://engage.dss.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Consultation-Paper-Self directed-Supports-281124. pdf 2 Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2020). Overview of responses to the Group homes Issues paper. Retrieved from: https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/2022 03/Overview%200f%20responses%20to%20the%20Group%20homes%20Issues%20paper.pdf
Q Inclusion Austrcio www. inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 6
petitioned their state governments to enable them to set up a more flexible model. This allowed families to move their family member with disability from their group home into appropriate housing, and directly employ people to provide the required supports.
Participants supported by service-for-one approaches were some of the first people to transition across to the NDIS after rollout commenced. People involved in this process say that their initial planning meetings were collaborative and purposeful, with families being encouraged to continue to support their family member with disability in an ongoing way through a service-for-one approach. However, because the service-for-one approach developed organically in specific states, it was not well-known across the country, and it is still not commonly recognised or understood.
There is more information about services-for-one available on our website.
We recognise that there is still work to be done across the disability sector to ensure consistently safe, high-quality supports, and to improve visibility and accountability in parts of the market where these have historically been lacking. However, reforms designed to address systemic failures must be carefully calibrated so they do not undermine models of support that are demonstrably working for some people with disability - particularly those with complex needs who have struggled to access safe, stable and individualised supports elsewhere. Legislative and regulatory reform should therefore strengthen, and not risk eroding, the viability of services-for-one.
While we support the intent of strengthening penalties, we are concerned the proposed changes may have unintended consequences for bespoke support models, including services-for-one. In particular, families may face disproportionate penalties for inadvertent non-compliance, as well as increased administrative and compliance burdens that they are not resourced to manage, potentially undermining the viability of these arrangements.
For example, a family operating a service-for-one usually employs, via establishing a legal entity, a very small team of support workers to support their family member with complex needs. Unlike large providers, they do not have dedicated compliance staff, may rely on unpaid informal supports, and may require time and capacity-building to build skills and develop processes over time. . It is our understanding that under a strengthened penalty framework, a minor administrative oversight - such as a missed reporting deadline or an error in worker documentation - could trigger significant penalties or enforcement action. The resulting financial and regulatory burden may force the family to exit the model altogether, despite the service delivering safe, high-quality, and highly personalised support that cannot be easily replicated by mainstream providers.
Recommendation 1
That the Committee consider and make explicit recommendations about what safeguards are required within NDIS Bill No. 2 to prevent unintended impacts on services-for-one, particularly as new registration categories and requirements are implemented. One option the Committee may wish to examine is the inclusion of a right to review civil penalties for non-compliance for providers operating within the ‘self directed supports’ category of registration. Without such safeguards, there is a real risk that services-for one may become less viable, undermining participant choice and control.
Unintended impacts on people accessing small providers in thin markets
A further unintended consequence of the proposed increases to civil and criminal penalties is the potential impact on small or niche providers, particularly those operating in rural and remote areas or delivering culturally specific or highly specialised supports. These providers often play a critical role in thin markets, where participants already have limited choice and few alternative options, yet frequently operate with constrained administrative capacity and limited access to compliance support.
Without appropriate safeguards, there is a risk that heightened regulatory complexity and exposure to significant penalties may discourage smaller providers from remaining in, or entering, the NDIS market. could result in provider withdrawal from already fragile markets, further reducing choice and continuity of supports for participants who may have few, if any, viable alternatives. Anecdotally, we hear from our members that this is already occurring, especially in thin markets.
The NDIS Review underscored the importance of ensuring participants do not lose supports during periods of reform, transition and
Q Inclusion Austrcio i = www. inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 7
system change.* We are concerned that, in the absence of additional transitional and protective measures, the proposed penalty framework may inadvertently undermine this objective. In our view, any strengthening of enforcement and penalties must be accompanied by safeguards that actively monitor and mitigate the risk of provider exit, and that prioritise continuity of supports for participants particularly those accessing supports in thin markets or relying on specialist or culturally specific services.
Recommendation 2
That the Committee consider and make explicit recommendations to address the risk of unintended provider exit arising from the proposed penalty framework, including by recommending safeguards that ensure continuity of supports for participants in thin markets. This should include consideration of how such risks will be identified, monitored and mitigated as the new regulatory settings are implemented.
Accessible and transparent information gathering
While we support the proposed changes to strengthen information-gathering powers under the legislation, we believe that greater clarity and transparency is needed in relation to how information is collected, used and shared. In particular, people must be able to understand what information may be requested, who it may be shared with, and for what purposes, especially where information-sharing occurs to support compliance or safeguarding functions.
Recommendation 3
That the Committee explicitly recommend to legislate that clear, accessible information about information gathering and information-sharing practices be developed and published by the NDIS Commission, including who information may be shared with, for what purposes, and the circumstances in which information may be shared without a person’s consent.
Possible unintended consequences of proposed Schedule 2 amendments
Withdrawing from the NDIS
We support the introduction of a 90-day cooling-off period for participants who wish to withdraw from the NDIS. However, further clarification is needed on how this process will operate in practice. While the Bill states that participants will be provided with information about the consequences of exiting the Scheme, how to cancel their initial request, and what will occur if they do not do so, it does not specify how this information will be delivered or in what format. Without clear requirements, there is a risk that participants
- particularly people with intellectual disability - may not receive information in a way that enables genuine understanding or informed decision-making.
This risk is heightened in circumstances where a participant has a Plan Nominee. In practice, nominees often play a significant role in receiving, interpreting and acting on information from the NDIA. Without explicit obligations on the NDIA to provide clear, accessible guidance to Plan Nominees about the limits of their role, there is a risk that nominees may unintentionally act as substitute decision-makers, rather than supporting the participant to make or reconsider their own decision during the cooling-off period. Clear information is therefore needed to ensure Plan Nominees understand the distinction between their role and substitute decision-making, and their responsibility to support the person’s decision-making in accordance with supported decision-making principles.
We are also concerned about the use of the term ‘best interest’ within the Bill. It is unclear who determines what is in a participant’s best interest, or what safeguards exist to ensure this assessment does not override a person’s will and preferences. This is particularly significant for people with intellectual disability, who are at heightened risk of substituted decision-making. While supported decision-making is
3 NDIS Review. 2023. Working together to deliver the NDIS: Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme. “Markets and support systems that empower people with disability”. Retrieved from: https://www.ndisreview.gov.au/sites/default/files/resource/download/working-together-ndis-review-final-report.pdf
Q Inclusion Austrcio www. inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 8
a core principle of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), it is not explicitly reflected in the proposed legislation, and we consider this to be a significant omission.
Recommendation 4
That the legislation require that all information relating to withdrawal from the NDIS be provided in accessible formats used by the person, including Easy Read, and delivered in a manner consistent with supported decision-making principles per Recommendation 6.6 of the Disability Royal Commission and the
NDIA’s Supported Decision-Making Policy.
To further strengthen participant rights and ensure genuine choice and control, the Bill should also require that any person who indicates a desire to exit the NDIS is offered a referral to an independent advocacy service. This would ensure people have access to independent support to understand their options and make an informed decision.
The legislation should additionally require the NDIA to provide clear, accessible information to Plan Nominees about:
a. the distinction between the role of a Plan Nominee and that of a substitute decision-maker; and b. their responsibilities to support the person’s decision-making in accordance with supported decision-making principles.
Requirements for submitting payment claims
In principle, we support the use of technology to improve and streamline payment claims under the NDIS. However, we are concerned that the proposed changes to electronic claim forms and information requirements may have unintended consequences for some people and families, and for smaller or less resourced providers, including families operating a service-for-one.
In relation to electronic claims, we are encouraged that people will be able to continue submitting claims in the existing ways as noted in the Explanatory Memorandum. We strongly support this approach and consider it essential that the legislation explicitly preserve existing claiming options, rather than leaving this to administrative discretion.
Our main concerns are regarding new requirements for submitting payment claims. Under the proposed amendments, it is our understanding that the NDIA will have greater discretion to require claims to request additional information before a claim can be paid. While the Bill allows the NDIA to extend timeframes for providing this information, these decisions rest solely with the Agency and there is a risk that claims may go unpaid where information cannot be provided within the required period, even where the claim itself is legitimate. We also understand that these decisions are not currently reviewable under sections 99 and 100 of the NDIS Act.
These proposed amendments may therefore be particularly challenging for people who self-manage claims, families operating a service-for-one, and for small or niche providers that may lack dedicated administrative capacity.
Individualised models such as services-for-one often operate with minimal or no back-office support and are intentionally designed to prioritise stable, individualised care rather than administrative infrastructure. Increased information requests, tighter timeframes and reliance on electronic systems may place disproportionate pressure on these models, increasing the risk of delayed or unpaid claims. In practice, this could result in cash-flow pressures, service disruption, or providers withdrawing supports altogether directly impacting a person’s right to have their support needs met, including through continuity of supports.
Recommendation 5
That the Committee ensure the legislation enables people to submit claims through existing mechanisms, and that subsection 45(3)(3A) be removed from the Bill to enable people to receive payment of invoices where there is an outstanding request for information from the NDIA but it is otherwise satisfied that the claim is legitimate.
In the case that this amendment is included in the Bill, we believe it is essential that this be a reviewable decision.
Q Inclusion Austrcio i = www. inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 9
Plan variations
While we understand that the proposed amendments to the plan variation provisions are intended to clarify existing practice, we are concerned about the potential for plans to be reduced without a full assessment of a person’s support needs, and without the requirement for supported decision-making. We believe greater clarity is required about:
a) Why this amendment is necessary given the NDIA already has an existing power to vary plans; and b) The precise circumstances in which a plan variation could result in a reduction in total funding, and how this aligns with principles of transparency, fairness and participant involvement.
We are concerned that explicitly providing for reductions through plan variations - particularly where variations may occur without a person’s informed agreement‘ - could lead to unintended consequences if the provision is misunderstood or applied more broadly than intended.
In practice, plan variations have typically been used to respond to urgent or limited circumstances, or to give effect to other decisions already made by the NDIA. We understand that reductions in plan funding through this mechanism have been rare. The inclusion of an explicit reference to decreasing funding risks created uncertainty and anxiety among people using the NDIS and their supporters about how this power may be used in the future. While the Explanatory Memorandum provides one example - where compensation funds are received by a participant to avoid a full reassessment - no further guidance is offered.
In our view, more substantive changes to a participant’s funding should continue to be made through a full plan review, supported by an assessment of support needs, rather than through the plan variation process.
Recommendation 6
That the Committee seek further clarification from the Government and the NDIA about why this amendment is required, how it is intended to operate in practice, and whether additional limitations or safeguards are needed to ensure plan variations are not used inappropriately to reduce participant supports. We also suggest this explanation be reflected in the legislation itself, for example to detail the specific circumstances in which a plan can have funding reduced.
- We also note that people with an intellectual disability - particularly people with limited informal supports or family networks or advocacy - may feel pressure to acquiesce to others who hold greater authority or power (real or perceived). This can include agreeing to decisions or information presented to them, even when it does not reflect their true preferences or wishes. This risk is particularly relevant in the context of plan variations, where some people may feel compelled to accept changes to their funding or supports without fully understanding or endorsing them.
Q Inclusion Austrcio i 8 = www.inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 10