One of the more contentious recommendations from the NDIS Review is the proposal that all services providers should be registered in some way with the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. This was outlined as a risk-proportionate model, where providers delivering higher risk supports would be subject to more obligations than those delivering lower risk services.
The NDIA have established a taskforce, chaired by lawyer and disability advocate Natalie Wade, to provide advice on the design and implementation of Review recommendation 17. The taskforce is conducting feedback and consultation sessions to hear the voices of people with disability as they compile their report.
Why does the Review recommend compulsory registration?
The short answer to this is that there are over 150,000 unregistered providers in the NDIS market, a number that has grown well beyond what was anticipated, and the fact that the existing quality and safeguard framework has not kept pace with the rapid growth and changes within the Scheme.
The NDIS Review is concerned that there is not sufficient oversight of providers to ensure the quality of supports delivered and the safety of participants. Essentially, managing quality and safety is almost entirely in the hands of participants and their families. Many participants will no doubt have plenty of stories about poor providers and a lack of regulatory support to protect the market, and while it is true that registration does not always mean safer outcomes, it brings greater visibility to how service providers operate.
On the other hand, provider registration in its current form is a one-size-fits-all approach, where every provider is audited against the same number of practice standards. This can be an administrative burden for smaller providers, especially those delivering low-risk supports. A granulated model would relieve this burden.
What are the concerns?
At the heart of participant alarm is the uncertainty about what changes may occur to impact existing, trusted relationships with long-standing unregistered providers with a particular focus on those providers that are not disability-specific in their business, such as cleaning and gardening companies, local pharmacies for consumable products, and online stores for low-cost assistive technology.
Similarly, the erosion of choice and control and dignity of risk are key points that echo the importance of one of the fundamental principles of the Scheme: that participants have the right to be in control of who provides support.
Co-design and the embedding of lived experience into policy decisions has been a central point of reference in the current government’s rhetoric. While the NDIS Review has pointed to many quality and safety shortcomings that mean change is required, many participants remain uncertain as to how a new registration model will impact their choice and control over supports. This is why the taskforce encouraged submissions and feedback from participants and their families, as well as from providers of disability supports. The taskforce closed for submissions in May 2024 and has published a series of online webinars on the DSS website: NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce | Department of Social Services, Australian Government (dss.gov.au)
The latest webinar from May 2024 includes a summary of the feedback received from the consultation period. There are currently no estimated timeframes for the results of these discussions from the feedback provided.
These results have the potential to shake up the NDIS for providers and participants alike. We will be keeping our ear to the ground to ensure that we are able to provide the latest and most recent information on this topic.