National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025
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,
rRe: 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 in 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 isability 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 mbers 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
orange.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, imited 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 bing treated as a “cost of doing business”, including by introducing higher-tier civil pnalties for “serious contraventions” and new, expanded criminal offenses for certain conduct. This is consistent with a proactive, credible regulatory posture and daligns 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 idified by the Disability Royal Commission and the NDIS Review. Poor practice is net limited to registered providers; it can be introduced via predatory consultancy odels, misleading audit support, and other market actors operating adjacent to providers. Whilst we are not opposed to expanding who falls within the parameters ofeing able to be banned, banning orders should remain a last-resort safeguard and be sported by procedural fairness, clear criteria, and transparent publication rules ich 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.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025
Submission 30
The risks associated with inducements to misuse funds and exploitative SDA marketing. “Regulated promotional conduct” must be narrowly defined through rules, effective safeguards should avoid capturing legitimate disability advocacy, peer- education, or good faith public commentary. The test undermining objects/principles must apply restraint & evidence based guidance published early so ethical providers aren’t discouraged communicating accurately w/ participants. A shorter information gathering timeframe is appropriate if Commissioner believes delay would significantly increase risk of serious harm - timeliness prevents responding after harm occurs “serious harm threshold”, ‘reasonable in circumstances’ tests applied rigorously Commission publishes internal guidelines ensures consistency avoids arbitrary use smaller providers may need practical support regional areas underdeveloped records systems.
Do these changes support rights?
The bill has potential strengthen protection from exploitation violence abuse neglect improve system integrity aligns Australia obligations under UN Convention Rights People Disabilities right safety dignity equality before law access supports however outcomes depend effectiveness Act implementation stronger regulatory powers can support when exercised proportionately transparently consistently accessible processes for participants families carers conversely overly punitive poorly communicated reduces choice shrinks provider markets creates fear-driven service withdrawal harms participants. We recommend guided by commitment:
- procedural fairness;
- accessible communications;
- lived experience co design; and purpleorange.org.au Inform. Connect. Influence.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025
Submission 30
e and ongoing monitoring of impact on access, choice and inclusion.
3) What unintended impacts may exist for people with disability, families and
carers? We identify the following key risks:
The Market exit and reduced choice Higher penalties and expanded enforcement tools may prompt some providers, practicularly 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).
The 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.
The 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.
The 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 exising 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.
The 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.
4) Are there better or safer ways to achieve the intended purpose?
purpleorange.org.au Inform. Connect. Influence.
JFA Purple Orange Recommendations
A variety of measures can be paired with legislative reform to achieve the Bill’s aims more safely.
The following is a list of recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission must invest in enforcement capacity and follow up processes to ensure there is:
- increased investigations capacity;
- improved intelligence and data analytics;
- clear referral pathways with police and other regulators; 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,
- use of anti-promotion orders,
- shortened timeframe notices, and expectations for compliance.
Recommendation 3: Where enforcement action disrupts service provision, the NDIA and Commission must 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 ant segregation measures.
We would welcome ongoing engagement on implementation particularly the development of rules and guidance we remain available to discuss issues raised in this submission.
purpleorange.org.au Inform. Connect. Influence.
purpleorange.org.au
Inform. Connect. Influence.