National Disability Insurance Scheme (Complaints Management and Resolution) Amendment (Dealing with Complaints) Rules 2026

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Issued by the authority of the Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013

Purpose

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Complaints Management and Resolution) Amendment (Dealing with Complaints) Rules 2025 (the Instrument) amends the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Complaints Management and Resolution) Rules 2018 (Complaints Rules).

The Instrument is made under section 209 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (the Act) for the purposes of subsection 73X(1) of the Act.

The Instrument amends the Complaints Rules to implement a new risk-based prioritisation model for dealing with complaints made to the Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (the Commissioner). The prioritisation model helps ensure that matters which present the greatest risk to the rights, health and safety of NDIS participants are identified and addressed as a priority. It supports a consistent, efficient and responsive process for prioritising complaints made to the Commissioner based on the level of risk to NDIS participants. The prioritisation model also helps to encourage NDIS providers to more effectively respond and resolve complaints, leading to improved outcomes for NDIS participants.

The Instrument includes minor amendments to simplify and provide clarity on the proportionate and flexible approach to dealing with complaints made to the Commissioner and to correct minor errors identified in the Complaints Rules.

Background

The Commissioner’s complaints functions under section 181G of the Act includes dealing with complaints made to the Commissioner, building the capacity of NDIS providers and NDIS participants in making and resolving complaints and using information from complaints as a critical intelligence source for the Commissioner’s broader safeguarding functions. The Commissioner can also take compliance or enforcement action where complaints raise serious breaches of the Act or the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Code of Conduct) Rules 2018 (NDIS Code of Conduct).

Complaints are critical to safeguarding NDIS participants. Complaints provide opportunities to resolve misunderstandings, address harm or conflict and can uphold the rights and health, safety, and wellbeing of NDIS participants.

The Complaints Rules, together with the NDIS Code of Conduct, require all NDIS providers to promptly take steps to raise and act on concerns about matters that may impact the quality and safety of NDIS supports and services provided to NDIS participants. Registered NDIS providers have additional complaints management and resolution system requirements under the Act and Complaints Rules.

The Commissioner is strengthening how complaints functions are carried out and has introduced a prioritisation model to better enable the appropriate prioritisation of matters that present the greatest safeguarding risks and to ensure timely regulatory responses can be taken to address serious breaches of the Act or NDIS Code of Conduct. The Instrument clarifies the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission’s (Commission) approach to responding to complaints about NDIS supports and services is underpinned by a new prioritisation model.

The prioritisation model will also improve the Commission’s ability to respond to emerging and systemic quality and safeguards issues to protect the rights and health, safety, and wellbeing of NDIS participants.

The Instrument is made under section 209 of the Act construed in accordance with subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

Section 209 of the Act provides that the Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules (NDIS rules) prescribing matters required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed or which are necessary or convenient to be prescribed in order to carry out or give effect to the Act.

Subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 states:

Where an Act confers a power to make, grant or issue any instrument of a legislative or administrative character (including rules, regulations or by-laws) the power shall be construed as including a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like conditions (if any) to repeal, rescind, revoke, amend, or vary any such instrument.

Subsection 201A(1) of the Act provides that the Minister may delegate to the Commissioner the Minister’s powers under section 209 of the Act to make NDIS rules, including NDIS rules made for the purposes of subsection 73X(1) of the Act. The Minister has delegated this power to the Commissioner.

Subsection 73X(1) of the Act provides that NDIS rules may prescribe arrangements relating to the management and resolution of complaints arising out of, or in connection with, the provision of supports or services by NDIS providers.

In making this Instrument, the Commissioner has had regard to the objects and principles of the Act and the need to ensure the financial sustainability of the NDIS, as required by subsection 209(3) of the Act.

The Instrument is a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislation Act 2003 and is an NDIS rule for the purposes of section 209 of the Act.

Commencement

The Instrument commences the day after it is registered on the Federal Register of Legislation.

Consultation

Section 209 of the Act provides that NDIS rules fall into four categories. Subsection 209(8) of the Act provides that certain categories of NDIS rules are ‘Category D’ rules. Category D rules include rules made for the purposes of subsection 73X(1) of the Act.

Under subsection 209(7) of the Act, Category D rules cannot be made under subsection 209(1) unless each host jurisdiction (states and territories) has been consulted in relation to the making of those rules. In compliance with this requirement, prior to making the Instrument, the Commissioner (as the Minister’s delegate) consulted all states and territories in relation to the making of this instrument. All states and territories have had the opportunity to review this Instrument and provide comments and feedback.

Targeted consultation has occurred on the prioritisation model with people with disability, NDIS providers, peak bodies, representative organisations and the NDIS Commission’s Complaints Function Advisory Committee.

Consultation has also been undertaken with the National Disability Insurance Agency, Governments (via the Disability Senior Officials Group), the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission and the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing.

Impact Analysis Statement

The Office of Impact Assessment has confirmed that a detailed Impact Analysis is not required for this Instrument (OIA ID: OIA25-09846).

Explanation of the provisions

Preliminary

Section 1 - Name

Section 1 provides that the Instrument is titled the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Complaints Management and Resolution) Amendment (Dealing with Complaints) Rules 2026.

Section 2 – Commencement

Section 2 provides that the whole of the Instrument commences on the day after the instrument is registered.

Section 3 – Authority

Section 3 provides that the Instrument is made under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013.

Section 4 – Schedules

Section 4 provides that each instrument specified in a Schedule to the Instrument is amended or repealed as set out in the Schedule concerned, and any other item in a Schedule to the Instrument has effect according to its terms.

Schedule 1 – Amendments

This Schedule amends the Complaints Rules.

Items 1 and 2 – Preamble

Items 1 and 2 amend the Preamble of the Complaints Rules.

Item 1 amends the Preamble to insert additional text to include that the Commissioner undertakes a risk assessment to prioritise complaints in accordance with:

(a) the impact of the complaint on the human rights and health, safety or wellbeing of participants; and

(b) whether the complaint relates to a contravention of the legislation underpinning the NDIS by an NDIS provider or worker, including whether the contravention is repeated or serious; and

Item 2 amends the Preamble to repeal and substitute the paragraph on the role of complaints, to clarify the greater role complaints can have in safeguarding NDIS participants. The amendment clarifies that complaints:

(a) enable the Commission to identify trends and systemic issues to drive improvements in the quality of NDIS supports and services; and

(b) provide an important source of intelligence for the Commission; and

The purpose of these amendments is to clarify that the Commission’s approach to responding to complaints about NDIS supports and services is underpinned by a prioritisation process.

Item 3 and 4 – Section 13

Items 3 and 4 amend section 13, which contains the simplified outline of Part 3. Part 3 deals with the processes related to handling complaints about NDIS supports and services

Item 3 repeals and substitutes paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in the simplified outline. The substituted paragraphs mirror the amendments made to section 16 which sets out how the Commissioner may deal with a complaint.

Item 4 repeals the text “written” in the simplified outcome to reflect amendments made to provisions under Part 3 that expand the way the Commissioner can communicate information about a complaint.

Items 5 to 13 – Section 16

Items 5 to 13 amend section 16, which sets out how the Commissioner must deal with a complaint.

Item 5 inserts a heading ‘Acknowledgement of complaint’ before subsection 16(1).

Subsection 16(1) provides that the Commissioner must acknowledge receipt of a complaint they receive. This amendment will insert a heading prior to subsection 16(1) to indicate the content of the subsection. This is being added for consistency as the remaining subsections will also include headings.

Item 6 inserts a new subsection 16(2A) to require the Commissioner, in relation to a complaint, to undertake a risk assessment to prioritise the complaint. This amendment requires the Commissioner to have regard to the following when undertaking the risk assessment to prioritise the complaint:

(a) the impact of the complaint on the human rights and health, safety or wellbeing of any person with disability affected by an issue raised in the complaint;

(b) whether the complaint relates to a contravention of the Act, the regulations or an instrument made under the Act by an NDIS provider, or a person employed or otherwise engaged by the NDIS provider, including whether the contravention is repeated or serious;

For clarity, the reference to ‘prioritise the complaint’ means to determine against the prescribed risk assessment criteria whether or not a complaint should be prioritised by the Commissioner for further review.

For example, the Commissioner receives a complaint involving a 17-year-old NDIS participant who has autism, an intellectual disability and epilepsy. The participant was receiving 24-hour support through the NDIS provider. They were hospitalised due to vomiting and seizures. A representative from the hospital is concerned about poor medication management by the NDIS provider. The Commission assesses the complaint and finds there have been two other recent complaints about the NDIS provider concerning unsafe handling of food, poor medication storage and poor hygiene. Several relevant reportable incidents are also identified.

This complaint is identified as high priority based on application of the criteria due to:

The NDIS provider’s recent history of alleged neglect, indicating systemic issues.
The seriousness of the negligence and high-risk nature of poor medication management.
The impacted participant being a minor, raising the risk and seriousness of the matter.

The NDIS participant has since ceased services with the NDIS provider and is transitioning to a new NDIS provider.

Item 6 also includes minor amendments to insert the headings ‘Assessment of complaint’ and ‘Decision on issue or complaint’ to provide a clear understanding around how the Commissioner may deal with a complaint and the underlying process.

The purpose of these amendments is to reflect the prioritisation process for dealing with complaints about NDIS supports and services. These amendments provide greater clarity that the Commissioner's approach to dealing with complaints about NDIS supports and services includes prioritising matters based on the level of safeguarding risk to NDIS participants, consistent with the original intention of the Complaints Rules. The amendments support consistent administrative decision-making while enabling targeted, timely and proportionate responses. The amendments also support NDIS providers to build their capacity to appropriately respond to complaints. NDIS providers have obligations to promptly address and act on any concerns that could affect the quality and safety of supports and services they provide to NDIS participants.

Item 7 inserts additional text to subsection 16(3) to clarify that when making a decision in relation to the complaint or each issue raised in the complaint, the Commissioner must have regard to the risk assessment undertaken under new subsection 16(2A).

Items 8 to 10 amend subsection 16(3) which concerns the decisions the Commissioner may take in relation to each issue raised in the complaint.

Item 8 repeals and substitutes paragraph 16(3)(a) to clarify that the Commissioner may close the complaint on the basis that one or more of the factors set out in section 17 applies. This amendment replaces ‘no further action’ with ‘close the complaint’ to make it clearer that while a complaint may be closed, additional action may be taken where appropriate. For example, the Commissioner may make the decision to close the complaint under paragraph 16(3)(a) because the matter in the complaint has been escalated for further regulatory action. In all cases, information from a complaint will also be retained as intelligence and will help enable the Commissioner to identify trends and systemic issues to drive improvements in the quality of NDIS supports and services. This amendment does not change the operation of this provision.

Item 9 amends paragraph 16(3)(b) by substituting the term ‘issue’ with ‘complaint or issue’ to ensure consistent use of terminology. This amendment does not change the operation of this provision.

Item 10 repeals and substitutes paragraph 16(3)(c) to reorder paragraph 16(3)(c) to 16(3)(d) and insert new paragraph 16(3)(c). New paragraph 16(3)(c) enables the Commissioner to require the NDIS provider to take certain actions in relation to the complaint or issue, including to examine and address the complaint or issue.

The purpose of this amendment is to enable the Commissioner to respond proportionately where the circumstances of the complaint or issue could be addressed effectively by requiring NDIS providers to take certain actions without having to make a decision first to undertake a resolution process under paragraph 16(3)(d) and in accordance with Subdivision B of Division 2 of Part 3 of the Complaints Rules.

The decision to require an NDIS provider to take certain actions is intended to be used primarily in relation to consumer disputes, and not matters involving safeguarding risks.

For example, the Commissioner receives a complaint about an NDIS provider who is slow in providing copies of service agreements and invoices. This issue does not involve immediate safeguarding risks but still highlights an issue in the NDIS provider’s practices. The Commissioner decided in this case that the most effective and proportionate response is to require the NDIS provider to take certain actions such as updating their procedures to ensure all participants receive copies of service agreements and invoices within set timeframes. Under the previous rules, the Commissioner would have had to make a decision to undertake a resolution process in order to get to this outcome. The inclusion of a decision to require the NDIS provider to take certain actions in relation to the complaint or issue enables the Commissioner to make this decision where it may not be appropriate, such as in these circumstances, to undertake a resolution process as it would create unnecessary regulatory and administrative burden and delay outcomes for NDIS participants.

Item 11 amends subsection 16(4) to include the new risk assessment process under new subsection 16(2A) in Item 6. This amendment allows the Commissioner to take one or more actions under subsection 16(4) when undertaking a risk assessment of a complaint.

Item 12 inserts a heading ‘Dealing with complaint’ before subsection 16(5) to help provide a clearer understanding around how the Commissioner may deal with a complaint and the underlying process.

Item 13 inserts new subsections 16(6) and (7) to provide greater clarity around the process and steps the Commissioner undertakes when dealing with a complaint.

New subsection 16(6) is inserted after the note to subsection 16(5) to clarify that if the Commissioner makes a decision under paragraph 16(3)(b) to give assistance and advice in relation to the complaint or an issue raised in the complaint, the Commissioner must give the assistance and advice orally, in writing or by any other means which is appropriate in the circumstances, and as soon as reasonably practicable.

New subsection 16(7) clarifies that if the Commissioner makes a decision under paragraph 16(3)(c) to require the NDIS provider to take certain actions in relation to the complaint or an issue raised in the complaint, the Commissioner must notify the NDIS provider of those actions orally, in writing or by any other means which is appropriate in the circumstances, as soon as reasonably practicable.

These amendments enable the Commissioner to take a more flexible and person-centred approach to engaging with both complainants and NDIS providers so that they can receive information from the Commissioner in a method that is appropriate to the circumstances.

Items 14 to 21 – Section 17

Items 14 to 21 make minor amendments to section 17 to simplify and align with the language changes made to paragraph 16(3)(a) and correct terminology. Section 17 outlines the circumstances under which the Commissioner may decide to take no further action, or defer taking action, in relation to a complaint.

Item 14 repeals and substitutes the heading of section 17 to reflect the terminology changes made to paragraph 16(3)(a). The heading now reads ‘Closing a complaint or issue’.

Item 15 repeals the heading of subsection 17(1) as it is no longer necessary given the content of the subsection is now self-explanatory.

Item 16 amends subsection 17(1) to substitute references to ‘take no further action’ with ‘close’, consistent with the language changes to paragraph 16(3)(a).

Item 17 amends paragraph 17(1)(g) to insert the reference to ‘including the assessment undertaken under subsection 16(2A)’ to align with new subsection 16(2A) and ensure consistency across the Complaints Rules.

Item 18 amends subsection 17(2) to substitute references to ‘take no further action’ with ‘close the complaint or issue’, consistent with the language changes to paragraph 16(3)(a).

Item 19 amends paragraph 17(2)(a) to substitute ‘health, safety or welfare’ with ‘health, safety or wellbeing’, consistent with the terminology used in the Act.

Item 20 amends subsection 17(3) to substitute references to ‘take no further action’ with ‘close’, consistent with the language changes to paragraph 16(3)(a).

Item 21 repeals subsections 17(4), (5) and (6) which enable a decision to defer taking action. Subsections 17(4), (5) and (6) are unnecessary as a result of the amendments to subsection 28(1) (see below, Item 47) which includes the ability for the Commissioner to reconsider a decision made in relation to a complaint or issue raised in the complaint in the same circumstances envisioned by the now repealed subsections 17(4), (5) and (6).

This amendment provides greater certainty and clarity for complainants. Under the previous rules, the complaint would be deferred, and the complainant would have no certainty around when a complaint would be considered and closed. The removal of the ability to defer taking action in relation to the complaint provides a clearer pathway for the issues raised in the complaint to be re-examined by the Commissioner under subsection 28(1) if appropriate to do so.

Items 22 and 23 – Section 18

Items 22 and 23 amend section 18 which deals with the withdrawal of a complaint.

Item 22 amends subsection 18(2) to clarify the method by which the Commissioner must acknowledge receipt of withdrawal of the complaint which can be ‘orally, in writing or by any other means which is appropriate in the circumstances’.

The purpose of this amendment is to enable the Commissioner to take a more flexible and person-centred approach to ensure that people, particularly people with disability, can receive information from the Commissioner in a method that is appropriate to their communication needs.

Item 23 amends paragraph 18(4)(b) to substitute ‘welfare’ with ‘wellbeing’, consistent with the terminology used in the Act.

Item 24 – Subsection 19(2)

Item 24 amends subsection 19(2) to substitute ‘safety, health or wellbeing’ with ‘health, safety or wellbeing’, consistent with the terminology used in the Act.

Item 25 – Paragraph 21(2)(b)

Item 25 amends paragraph 21(2)(b) to substitute ‘safety, health or wellbeing’ with ‘health, safety or wellbeing’, consistent with the terminology used in the Act.

Item 26 – Paragraph 22(2)(a)

Item 23 amends paragraph 22(2)(a) to substitute ‘welfare’ with ‘wellbeing’, consistent with the terminology used in the Act.

Item 27 – Subdivision C of Division 2 of Part 3 (heading)

Item 27 amends the heading of Subdivision C of Division 2 of Part 3 which incorrectly referred to ‘resolution processes’. The amendment substitutes ‘resolution processes’ with ‘complaint’. The corrected heading now refers to ‘Notices relating to outcome of complaint’.

Items 28 to 31 – Section 23

Items 28 to 32 amend section 23 which concerns providing notice of the decision to take no further action.

Item 28 amends the heading of section 23 to substitute ‘take no further action’ with ‘close a complaint or issue’ to reflect the terminology changes made to paragraph 16(3)(a). The heading now refers to ‘Notice of decision to close a complaint or issue’.

Items 29 and 30 make minor amendments to simplify and align with the language changes made to paragraph 16(3)(a). These are editorial amendments only.

Item 29 amends subsection 23(1) to substitute ‘decides to take no further action in relation to a complaint or an issue arising out of a complaint under paragraph 16(3)(a)’ with ‘decides under paragraph 16(3)(a) to close a complaint or an issue raised in a complaint’, consistent with the language changes to paragraph 16(3)(a).

Item 30 amends paragraph 23(1)(a) to substitute ‘take no further action’ with ‘close the complaint or issue’, consistent with the language changes to paragraph 16(3)(a).

Item 31 inserts new subsection 23(5) to make it clear that the information under paragraphs 23(1)(a) and (b) may be given ‘orally, in writing or by any other means which is appropriate in the circumstances’.

Item 32 – After section 23

Item 32 inserts new section 23A and new section 23B to specify the Commissioner must, as soon as practicable, give notice of decisions made under paragraphs 16(3)(b) and (c).

New section 23A clarifies that if the Commissioner decides under paragraph 16(3)(b) to give assistance and advice in relation to a complaint or an issue raised in a complaint, the Commissioner must, as soon as practicable, give the complainant information about the assistance and advice that has been given, or is to be given.

New section 23B clarifies that if the Commissioner decides under paragraph 16(3)(c) to require the NDIS provider to take certain actions in relation to a complaint or an issue raised in a complaint, the Commissioner must, as soon as practicable, give the complainant information about the actions the NDIS provider has been required, or is required, to take. New subsection 16(7) (see above, Item 13) makes it clear that the NDIS provider will separately receive information about any actions required by the Commissioner. This will be particularly important in circumstances where a complaint was made anonymously.

The purpose of these amendments is to provide greater clarity around the process and steps the Commissioner undertakes when dealing with a complaint.

Items 33 to 35 – Section 24

Items 33 to 35 makes minor editorial amendments to section 24 which concerns providing notice of the outcome of the resolution process if the Commissioner decides to end a resolution process in relation to a complaint or an issue raised in a complaint.

Item 33 amends subsection 24(1) to make a minor editorial change by reordering the words of the subsection to improve clarity and consistency with the other notice of complaint outcome provisions under Subdivision C.

Item 34 amends subsection 24(2) to repeal the text ‘in writing’ which is unnecessary as a result of the insertion of new subsection 24(7) (see Item 35).

Item 35 inserts new subsection 24(7) to clarify the method by which the Commissioner must give information about the outcome of the resolution process to the complainant can be ‘orally, in writing or by any other means which is appropriate in the circumstances’.

The purpose of these amends is to improve readability of the provision and clarify the method of communicating information about the outcome of the resolution process to the complainant. These amendments do not change the effect of this provision.

Items 36 to 39 – Section 26

Items 36 to 39 amend section 26 which deals with applications for reconsideration by Commissioner. These are minor amendments to simplify and align with the language changes made to paragraph 16(3)(a).

Item 36 amends the heading of subsection 26(1) to substitute ‘take no further action’ with ‘close a complaint or issue’ to reflect the terminology changes made to paragraph 16(3)(a). The heading now refers to ‘Reconsideration of decision to close a complaint or issue’.

Item 37 amends subsection 26(1) to substitute ‘take no further action on’ with ‘close’, consistent with the language changes to paragraph 16(3)(a).

Item 38 amends subsection 26(2) to clarify that, in addition to the circumstance where the complaint has been withdrawn, an application cannot be made for reconsideration under subsection 26(1) if the original decision has already been reconsidered by the Commissioner under subparagraph 27(1)(b)(ii) and one or more of the circumstances in subsection 17(1) or (3) applies.

The purpose of this amendment is to provide greater clarity of the circumstances in which an application for reconsideration may be made under section 26 and to align with changes made to paragraph 27(1)(b) (see below, Item 40). This will not remove the ability of a complainant to seek external review of a decision to close the complaint, including by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

For example, the Commissioner has received an application for reconsideration of a decision (the original decision) that has previously been reconsidered by the Commissioner. This is the second reconsideration request of the original decision. The first reconsideration request was reconsidered by the Commissioner and resulted in the Commissioner undertaking a risk assessment under subsection 16(2A) and then deciding under paragraph 16(3)(a) to close the complaint. The Commissioner made this decision on the basis of that the complaint is better dealt with by another body in accordance with paragraph 17(1)(e). As the Commissioner has already reconsidered the original decision and decided to close the complaint, the applicant is unable to seek further reconsiderations of the same decision.

Item 39 amends paragraph 26(4)(b) to align with changes made to subparagraph 27(1)(b)(ii) (see below, Item 40).

Items 40 to 46 – Section 27

Items 40 to 46 amend section 27 which sets out how the Commissioner will deal with reconsiderations when an application for reconsideration is received under section 26.

Item 40 amends paragraph 27(1)(b) to substitute ‘decide to undertake a new resolution process’ with doing both a risk assessment under new subsection 16(2A) and making a decision under subsection 16(3) in relation to the complaint or issue for which reconsideration has been sought. This expands the actions available to the Commissioner instead of previously only being able to undertake a new resolution process.

The purpose of this amendment is to provide the Commissioner with greater flexibility in actions that may be taken after receiving an application under section 26 to reconsider a decision. This flexibility helps ensure proportional and tailored outcomes.

For example, the Commissioner receives an application for reconsideration of a decision (the original decision). The Commissioner is satisfied that the application for reconsideration raises an issue that was not part of the original complaint and decides to treat the application as a fresh complaint. Under the previous rules, the Commissioner would only have been able to decide to undertake a resolution process. The changes to made paragraph 27(1)(b) enable the Commissioner to undertake a risk assessment under subsection 16(2A) and then make a decision under paragraph 16(3) in relation to the complaint or issue for which reconsideration has been sought. In this case, the Commissioner decides it would be appropriate to require the NDIS provider to take certain actions in relation to the complaint or issue under paragraph 16(3)(c). This outcome would not have been possible under the previous rules.

Item 41 amends subsection 27(3) to repeal the text ‘in writing’ which is unnecessary as a result of the insertion of new subsection 27(7) (see Item 46).

Item 42 inserts new subsection 27(3A) to clarify that for the purposes of making a decision under subparagraph 27(1)(b)(ii), if the Commissioner makes a decision under paragraph 16(3)(a), (b) or (c) in relation to the complaint or issue, the Commissioner must comply with requirements in Subdivision C, as applicable. This amendment is consistent with the approach provided under subsection 27(4) when the Commissioner decides to undertake a resolution process under paragraph 16(3)(d).

The purpose of this amendment is to provide greater clarity around the process involved for reconsideration decisions by the Commissioner and to ensure consistency across the Complaints Rules.

Item 43 amends subsection 27(4) to make minor amendments to improve clarity and readability of the provision by reordering the words of the subsection. These are editorial amendments only.

Items 44 and 45 make minor amendments to subsection 27(4) to remove unnecessary text.

Item 44 amends paragraph 27(4)(a) to remove the text ‘in writing’ which is unnecessary as a result of the insertion of new subsection 27(7) (see Item 46).

Item 45 amends paragraph 27(4)(b) to remove the text ‘new’ from before ‘resolution process’ to simplify this provision and remove unnecessary text.

Item 46 inserts new subsection 27(7) to clarify the method by which the Commissioner must give information about the reconsideration decision can be ‘orally, in writing or by any other means which is appropriate in the circumstances’.

Items 47 to 50 – Section 28

Items 47 to 50 amend section 28 which sets out the circumstances under which the Commissioner may reconsider a decision (the original decision) made in relation to a complaint.

Item 47 amends subsection 28(1) to clarify the Commissioner may reconsider a decision made by the Commissioner in relation to a complaint or an issue raised in a complaint if:

(a) the Commissioner becomes aware of new information that, had the Commissioner been aware of at the time the original decision was made, may have affected the original decision; or

(b) the Commissioner becomes aware that the complainant, or a person with disability affected by the complaint or issue, has not been able to resolve the complaint or issue with the NDIS provider; or

The purpose of this amendment is to provide greater clarity of the circumstances upon which the Commissioner may reconsider a decision made by the Commissioner. Under the previous rules, aside from becoming aware of new information, there were no examples of the circumstances under which the Commissioner could decide to reconsider a decision.

For example, the Commissioner decided to close a complaint on the basis that a coronial inquiry was also being conducted. The coronial inquiry concluded, and it became clear that the coroner’s findings did not examine the NDIS provider’s delivery of support which was the subject of the original complaint. The Commissioner decided that it was appropriate to reconsider the original complaint in these circumstances.

Item 48 amends paragraph 28(3)(a) to repeal the text ‘in writing’ which is unnecessary as a result of the insertion of new subsection 28(6) (see Item 50).

Item 49 amends paragraph 28(3)(b) to substitute ‘must undertake a new resolution process’ with doing both a risk assessment under new subsection 16(2A) and making a decision under subsection 16(3) in relation to the complaint or issue which is being reconsidered. This expands the actions available to the Commissioner instead of previously only being able to undertake a new resolution process.

The purpose of this amendment is to provide the Commissioner with greater flexibility in actions that may be taken after deciding on its own motion to reconsider a decision the Commissioner previously made. This flexibility helps ensure proportional and tailored outcomes.

Item 50 inserts new subsections 28(4), (5) and (6) to clarify that for the purposes of making a decision under subparagraph 28(3)(b)(ii), if the Commissioner makes a decision under paragraph 16(3)(a), (b) or (c) in relation to the complaint or issue, the Commissioner must comply with requirements in Subdivision C, as applicable. If the Commissioner decides to undertake a resolution process under paragraph 16(3)(d), the Commissioner must complete the resolution process in accordance with Subdivisions B and C. Information about reconsideration decision may be given by the Commissioner ‘orally, in writing or by any other means which is appropriate in the circumstances’.

The purpose of this amendment is to provide greater clarity around the process involved for reconsideration decisions by the Commissioner and to ensure consistency across the Complaints Rules.

Item 51 – At the end of the Instrument

Item 51 inserts new section 33 under new Part 4 into the Complaints Rules to set out application and transitional arrangements for the amendments made by this Instrument.

New subsection 33(1) provides that the amendments of Subdivisions A to C of Division 2 of Part 3 made by Instrument apply in relation to a complaint made on or after commencement of this section, and a complaint made before commencement of this section if the Commissioner has not made a decision on the complaint before that commencement.

New subsection 33(2) provides that the amendments of sections 26 and 27 made by the Instrument apply in relation to an application for reconsideration of a decision, where the application is made on or after the commencement of this section (whether the decision is made before, on or after that commencement), and an application for reconsideration of a decision, where the application is made before the commencement of this section if the Commissioner has not made a decision on the application before that commencement.

New subsection 33(3) provides that the amendments of section 28 made by the Instrument apply in relation to an original decision made before, on or after the commencement of this section, whether the complaint the subject of the original decision was made before, on or after that commencement.

These amendments provide information about the application of the amendments to the Complaints Rules contained in the Instrument.

STATEMENT OF COMPATIBILITY WITH HUMAN RIGHTS

Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011

NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME (COMPLAINTS MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION) AMENDMENT (DEALING WITH COMPLAINTS) RULES 2026

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Complaints Management and Resolution) Amendment (Dealing with Complaints) Rules 2025 (the Instrument) is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

Overview of the Instrument

The Instrument amends the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Complaints Management and Resolution) Rules 2018 (Complaints Rules).

The Complaints Rules promote and protect the rights of people with disability by setting out requirements for the handling and resolution of complaints to ensure that people with disability can freely, safely and effectively raise concerns and complaints about NDIS supports.

The Complaints Rules are important to:

protect the rights and safety of people with disability by ensuring there are clear processes to raise concerns;
promote accountability and provide opportunities to resolve misunderstandings, address harm or conflict; and
outline expectations for registered NDIS providers complaints management and resolution system requirements.

Consistent with this approach, the Instrument amends the Complaints Rules to implement a new risk-based prioritisation model for dealing with complaints made to the Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (the Commissioner).

The Instrument clarifies the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission’s (Commission) approach to responding to complaints about NDIS supports and services is underpinned by a new prioritisation model. The prioritisation model better enables the appropriate prioritisation of matters that present the greatest safeguarding risks and to ensure timely regulatory responses can be taken to address serious breaches of the Act or NDIS Code of Conduct.

The Instrument supports the effective operation of the NDIS by embedding the prioritisation model which will improve the Commission’s ability to respond to emerging and systemic quality and safeguards issues to protect the rights and health, safety, and wellbeing of NDIS participants.

Human rights implications

This Instrument engages the following human rights under international human rights law:

Rights to equality and non-discrimination – articles 2, 16 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), article 2 of the International Covenant on Economic and Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and articles 5 and 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD); and
Right to protection from exploitation, violence and abuse – article 20(2) of the ICCPR and article 16(1) of the CRPD.

The right to equality and non-discrimination

The right to equality and non-discrimination is recognised in articles 2, 16 and 26 of the ICCPR, article 2 of the ICESCR and articles 5 and 12 of the CRPD. This is a fundamental human right that is essential to the protection and respect of all human rights. It provides that every person is entitled to enjoy their rights without discrimination of any kind on the basis of a number of prohibited grounds, and that all people are equal before the law and entitled without discrimination to the equal and non-discriminatory protection of the law.

The Instrument engages the right to equality and non-discrimination as the prioritisation model for dealing with complaints involves assessing and responding to complaints differently based on safeguarding risk.

A complaint made to the Commissioner is prioritised by determining the complaint against prescribed risk assessment criteria including: the impact of the complaint on the human rights and health, safety or wellbeing of participants; whether the complaint relates to a contravention of the legislation underpinning the NDIS by an NDIS provider or worker, including whether the contravention is repeated or serious; and whether an issue raised in the complaint is a strategic priority or emerging risk for the Commission.

The Instrument promotes the right to equality and non-discrimination by embedding the prioritisation model which helps support a consistent process for prioritising complaints made to the Commissioner based on the level of risk to NDIS participants. This is consistent with substantive equality by ensuring that complaints raising the highest risk of harm are responded to as a priority.

The right to protection from exploitation, violence and abuse

Article 20(2) of the ICCPR and article 16(1) of the CRPD recognise the right to protection from exploitation, violence and abuse. This includes the positive duty to take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social, educational and other measures to protect persons with disabilities, both within and outside the home, from all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse.

The Instrument engages and promotes the right to protection from exploitation, violence and abuse of persons with disabilities as the prioritisation model ensures that complaints which present the greatest risk to the rights, health and safety of NDIS participants are able to be identified and addressed as a priority. This prioritisation enables the Commissioner to respond quickly and effectively to complaints raising immediate safeguarding risks which will help reduce and prevent harm to people with disability.

Conclusion

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Complaints Management and Resolution) Amendment (Dealing with Complaints) Rules 2026 is compatible with human rights as it advances the protection of the rights of people with disability in Australia consistent with the CRPD, particularly in relation to preventing exploitation, violence and abuse in the disability sector. The Instrument forms part of an overall legislative scheme designed to protect and promote the human rights of people with disability.

Louise Glanville, Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission

Administered by Department of Health, Disability and Ageing

Interactions

Legislation content

Interactions

Authorises

All Versions