NDIA Accountability Project

Proposed reforms to NDIS regulatory powers and safeguards

‹ PrevPage 1 of 4 · Source p. 1Next ›

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding)

Submission from Aged and Disability Advocacy Australia (ADA)

Date: 6 February 2026

Committee Secretary: Community Affairs Legislation Committee PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 By email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au

Dear Committee,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed amendments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (the NDIS) framework as set out in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding Bill **2025 (**the Bill). Aged and Disability Advocacy Australia (ADA) appreciates being consulted on this important issue.

About ADA Australia

ADA is a not-for-profit, independent, community-based advocacy and education service with more than 35 years’ experience in informing, supporting, representing and advocating in the interests of older people, and persons with disability in Queensland.

ADA also provides legal advocacy through ADA Law, a community legal centre and a division of ADA. ADA Law provides specialized legal advice to older people and people with disability, including those living with cognitive impairments or questioned capacity, on issues associated with human rights, elder abuse, and health and disability legal issues related to decision-making.

ADA advocates and legal practitioners work with identified First Peoples advocates through the Yarn2Action advocacy service for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability, to provide individual advocacy services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability.

ADA has reviewed the Bill and provides the following comments for consideration by the Committee:

Strengthening safeguards for participants

ADA supports the Bill’s overarching objective to strengthen participant safeguards and improve regulatory powers and responsiveness. ADA particularly notes the proposed reforms to expand civil and criminal penalties, broaden banning order powers, and to introduce a period for participant withdrawals. 90‑day cooling‑off

ADA welcomes the introduction of legislative measures that recognise the structural power imbalance that people with disability frequently experience when engaging with providers, intermediaries and government agencies, and that seek to implement improved scaffolds for persons with disability. In ADA’s experience, this imbalance is often most acute where participants lack access to information, face barriers to asserting their rights, or are required to rely on providers to disclose matters that may affect their safety, funding, or continuity of supports.

Increased penalties and enforcement powers

ADA supports the proposed expansion of civil penalty provisions and the creation of new criminal offences for serious contraventions by providers and related parties. We consider a strengthened penalty framework as necessary to addressing systemic non-compliance and aligning consequences with the harmful impacts that may be experienced by participants.

These measures are proportionate and consistent with broader regulatory practice in other, safety-critical sectors: by targeting repeated or systemic contraventions with meaningful penalties, they will incentivise compliance and protect participants from harm. ADA is hopeful that these measures will also support a cultural shift towards a fairer market for participants and for those providers who deliver quality supports and meet standards that align not only with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (the Disability Royal Commission) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the CRPD), as well as with community expectations.

Strengthened information gathering powers

ADA supports the Bill’s proposal to significantly strengthen the regulatory capacity of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (the Commission), including by enhancing the Commission’s to require the production of information and documents, shortening timeframes for compliance, and introducing meaningful consequences for failure to comply. These measures are critical to addressing longstanding barriers faced by the Commission in securing timely and accurate information from providers and associated parties, with adverse consequences of these obstacles and limited opportunity for remedy flowing to participants. Improved information-gathering powers enable earlier detection of risk, more effective investigation of alleged misconduct, and more proportionate regulatory responses, all of which are essential to safeguarding participants.

ADA also notes the importance of reforms that extend the reach of these powers beyond sole reliance on registered providers, recognising that participants may be affected by the conduct of a wider service delivery ecosystem. Strengthening the Commission’s capacity to obtain information across this broader field reflects contemporary service delivery arrangements and is an essential development in enhancing regulatory oversight.

These strengthened regulatory powers are appropriately complemented by the measures proposed under Schedule 2 of the Bill, including clearer communication pathways and processes that support

Expansion of banning orders

ADA supports the proposed expansion of banning order powers under proposed section 737ZN of the NDIS Act to the effect of broadening who can be subject to a banning order, including auditors, consultants, and other persons whose conduct may place participants at risk, and increase penalties for breaches of such orders. This acknowledges real-world risk scenarios that NDIS participants often encounter, and enables the regulator to act earlier to prevent harm.

Complementary measures such as anti-promotion orders to curb misleading or exploitative marketing that can induce participants into unsafe or inappropriate arrangements are welcomed. Together with expanded banning powers, these tools provide a suite of interventions to address misconduct at various points of disability service delivery.

ADA recommends that the Bill be amended to clarify:

  • clear statutory criteria for issuing banning orders (for example, having regard to seriousness, risk to participant safety, and prior conduct);
  • proportionate review and appeal rights consistent with administrative law principles; and
  • transparent publication practices (with appropriate privacy safeguards) so participants and providers can understand who is subject to restrictions and why.

Introduction of a mandatory 90-day cooling-off period

ADA supports the premise of a mandatory 90-day cooling-off period for participant withdrawals as an important safeguard against coerced or misinformed decisions. At the same time, this safeguard must be implemented in a way that is faithful to the NDIS Act’s foundational presumption that people with disability have capacity to make decisions about their lives and supports, and to the NDIS Act’s commitment that participants be supported to exercise choice, including taking reasonable risks, which is the core of dignity of risk. These principles are embedded in the NDIS Act’s objects and general principles and are reflected in the NDIS Practice Standards and NDIA policy framework on supported decision-making and participant safeguarding.

Further Reforms Needed

To give proper effect to these principles, ADA recommends that the Bill include appropriately narrow exemptions to the otherwise mandatory cooling-off rule. Specifically, the Bill should provide a limited discretion for the NDIA to shorten the cooling-off period in circumstances where the participant’s decision is informed, free from undue influence, and consistent with their goals and preferences. The exercise of any discretion should be informed by the agency meaningfully engaging with the participant and their nominated support persons (including legal representatives and specialist advocacy services), and by careful consideration of the reasons underpinning the participant’s wish to withdraw—such as a transition to aged care or another non-NDIS service system, or circumstances where the participant seeks to exit services due to experiences of abuse or neglect.

This approach upholds the presumption of capacity and respects dignity of risk, while still delivering the Bill’s protective intent. It also aligns with NDIA policy settings that prioritise supported decision-making (rather than substitute decision-making) and recognise that participants may knowingly choose pathways that involve manageable risks.

Further reforms needed

ADA encourages the Committee to consider whether a future tranche of safeguarding reforms could include measures to progressively align expectations for unregistered providers with those applying to registered providers, including consideration of extending the NDIS Practice Standards across the provider market.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. ADA would be pleased to further assist the Committee with its inquiry. Should you wish to discuss this submission, please do not hesitate to contact Vanessa Krulin, Principal Policy Advisor and Solicitor on

Yours faithfully

Geoff Rowe Chief Executive Officer