GO. Head Office
104 Greenhill Road
O Purple Unley SA 5061 Orange (08) 8373 8388
ABN 16 464 890 778 778
6 February 2026
Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
By Email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au
Dear Committee Secretary,
Re: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding)
Bill 2025
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025 (“the Bill”). JFA Purple Orange supports the intent of strengthening quality and safeguarding in the NDIS and preventing the kinds of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation documented by the
Disability Royal Commission and the 2023 NDIS Review.
JFA Purple Orange is an independent, social-profit organisation that undertakes systemic policy analysis and advocacy across a range of issues affecting people with disability and their families. Our work is characterised by co-design and co-production and includes hosting a number of user-led initiatives. Much of our work involves connecting people with disability to good information and to each other. We also work extensively in multi-stakeholder consultation and collaboration, especially around policy and practice that helps ensure people with disability are welcomed as valued members of the mainstream community. Our work is informed by a model called
Citizenhood.
We broadly support the Bill’s direction, particularly measures that strengthen the NDIS Commission’s ability to deter serious misconduct and respond swiftly to risks of serious harm. However, consistent with our previous submission on NDIS Bill No.2 Consultation Paper in January 2025, we reiterate that legislative change alone will not
purpleorange.org.au Inform. Connect. Influence.
fix the underlying safeguarding failures. Many obligations already exist in the NDIS Act, NDIS Rules, NDIS Code of Conduct, and general criminal law. The primary problems have been inconsistent enforcement, insufficient investigative capacity, limited follow-through, and deeper systemic drivers of harm, including segregation, exclusion, workforce precarity, and under-resourcing across mainstream systems that should sit alongside the NDIS.
Our responses below are structured against the consultation questions.
- Do you agree with these changes? Why / why not? Strengthening penalties and offences
The Bill strengthens the penalty framework to deter wrongdoing and prevent penalties being treated as a “cost of doing business”, including by introducing higher-tier civil penalties for “serious contraventions” and new, expanded criminal offences for certain conduct. This is consistent with a proactive, credible regulatory posture and aligns with comparable regulatory approaches in other sectors. However, penalties are only meaningful if the Commission has the capacity and will to investigate, prosecute, and follow through. Without adequate resourcing and enforcement transparency, stronger penalties can be largely symbolic and risk contributing to sector anxiety without delivering participant safety.
Expanding banning orders
The Bill expands banning orders to capture additional categories of people, such as applicants for registration, approved quality auditors, consultants, addresses gaps identified by the Disability Royal Commission and the NDIS Review. Poor practice is not limited to registered providers; it can be introduced via predatory consultancy models, misleading audit support, and other market actors operating adjacent to providers. Whilst we are not opposed to expanding who falls within the parameters of being able to be banned, banning orders should remain a last-resort safeguard and be supported by procedural fairness, clear criteria, and transparent publication rules which can increase the consistency of decision making. If banning is used inconsistently, it risks undermining trust.
Anti-promotion orders
JFA Purple Orange support tools to curb misleading marketing and promotional conduct that undermines the objects and principles of the NDIS, including
purpleorange.org.au Inform. Connect. Influence.
inducements to misuse funds and exploitative SDA marketing. This responds to clear integrity risks. “Regulated promotional conduct” must be narrowly defined through rules, with strong safeguards to avoid capturing legitimate disability advocacy, peer led education, or good-faith public commentary. The test of undermining the objects or principles should be applied with restraint and be evidence-based. Guidance should be published early so ethical providers are not discouraged from communicating
accurately with participants. Shorter information-gathering timeframes
Allowing shorter-than-minimum response periods, where the Commissioner reasonably believes delay would significantly increase the risk of serious harm, we believe is appropriate. Timeliness is often the difference between preventing harm and responding after harm occurs. In saying this, the “serious harm” threshold and “reasonable in the circumstances” test must be applied rigorously and the Commission should publish internal guidance and ensure consistency, to avoid arbitrary use. Smaller providers may need practical support to comply, especially in
regional areas or where records systems are underdeveloped.
- Do these changes support the rights of people with disability, their families and carers?
The Bill has the potential to strengthen protection from exploitation, violence, abuse and neglect and improve system integrity. These aims align with Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disability, including the right to safety, dignity, equality before the law, and access to appropriate supports. However, rights outcomes will depend on the effectiveness of the Act’s implementation. Stronger regulatory powers can support rights when they are exercised proportionately, transparently and consistently, with accessible processes for participants, families and carers. Conversely, overly punitive or poorly communicated implementation can reduce choice, shrink provider markets, and create fear-driven
service withdrawal that harms participants. We recommend implementation be guided by a clear commitment to:
e procedural fairness; e accessible communications:
e lived-experience co-design; and
purpleorange.org.au Inform. Connect. Influence.
e and ongoing monitoring of impact on access, choice and inclusion.
- What unintended impacts may exist for people with disability, families and carers? We identify the following key risks: Market exit and reduced choice
Higher penalties and expanded enforcement tools may prompt some providers, particularly smaller ethical providers, to withdraw from the NDIS due to fear of compliance risk or administrative burden. Reduced choice disproportionately impacts participants in thin markets (regional areas, culturally safe services, specialist supports).
Chilling effects on legitimate communication
Anti-promotion orders may have a chilling effect if definitions are too broad or guidance is unclear, potentially discouraging honest communication about supports,
pricing, or systemic issues. Disproportionate burdens on small providers and workers
Shortened response timeframes may be manageable for large organisations but challenging for small providers or sole traders, risking uneven enforcement or
unintended penalties for administrative incapacity rather than misconduct. Participant anxiety and distrust
Plan variation changes (and related NDIA operational reforms) may increase anxiety that budgets can be reduced without adequate safeguards. Even if the law is clarifying existing power, participant trust is fragile, particularly in the current reform environment. It is important for there to be clear, targeted and co-designed
communications to maximise understanding of the reforms. Transition risks when enforcement action is taken
Where providers are banned, deregistered or shut down as an enforcement action, participants may experience abrupt service loss. Without strong continuity planning,
families and carers often absorb the consequences.
- Are there better or safer ways to achieve the intended purpose? purpleorange.org.au Inform. Connect. Influence.
JFA Purple Orange recommends that legislative reform be paired with a variety of measures to achieve the Bill’s aims more safely. We have compiled these into a list of
recommendations for your consideration below.
Recommendation 1: The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission must invest in
enforcement capacity and follow up processes to ensure there is:
e increased investigations capacity;
improved intelligence and data analytics;
e Clear referral pathways with police and other regulators; and e and public reporting of enforcement activity.
Recommendation 2: The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission should publish
practical guidance, as early as possible, on:
“serious contraventions” thresholds, e use of anti-promotion orders, e shortened timeframe notices,
and expectations for compliance.
Recommendation 3: The NDIA and Commission must, where enforcement action disrupts service provision, coordinate continuity plans so participants are not left without supports. This includes participant-centred continuity planning, proactive participant outreach and rapid reconnection to alternative services.
Recommendation 4: The Federal Government should strengthen the broader safeguarding ecosystem by investing in whole-of-government reforms, including stronger mainstream supports, workforce reform, housing and community
inclusion initiatives, and anti-segregation measures.
We would welcome ongoing engagement on implementation, particularly the development of rules and guidance, and we remain available to discuss the issues
raised in this submission.
purpleorange.org.au Inform. Connect. Influence.
purpleorange.org.au
Inform. Connect. Influence.