National Disability Insurance Scheme (Provider Registration and Practice Standards) Amendment (Mandatory Registration and Other Matters) Rules 2026

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

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

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013

National Disability Insurance Scheme (Provider Registration and Practice Standards) Amendment (Mandatory Registration and Other Matters) Rules 2026

Purpose

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Provider Registration and Practice Standards) Amendment (Mandatory Registration and Other Matters) Rules 2026 (the Instrument) amends the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Provider Registration and Practice Standards) Rules 2018 (Provider Registration Rules).

The Instrument is made under section 209 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (the Act) for the purposes of subsections 73B(1), 73T(1) and section 73H.

The Instrument amends the Provider Registration Rules to:

•          introduce mandatory registration of Supported Independent Living (SIL) providers and providers delivering NDIS digital platform services;
•          establish new conditions on registration, including change of ownership requirements and requirements on providers delivering NDIS digital platform services; and
•          introduce new NDIS Practice Standards specific to SIL.

The introduction of mandatory registration and additional registration conditions will better safeguard participants and address concerns around the quality of higher risk NDIS supports and services by requiring providers delivering SIL and NDIS digital platform services to meet minimum quality and safeguarding standards. The SIL Practice Standards will strengthen the overall quality and consistency of SIL by ensuring services are delivered in a participant‑centred, rights‑based way.

The Instrument strengthens the NDIS registration framework applying to higher risk supports and services to better protect and promote the rights and safety of people with disability by ensuring that NDIS providers meet certain standards of quality and safety.

Background

The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (NDIS Commission) regulates the quality, integrity, and registration of NDIS providers under a nationally rigorous framework including NDIS Practice Standards and the NDIS Code of Conduct.

The Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (the Commissioner) is responsible for regulating the quality and safety of services and supports, including through the registration of NDIS providers and monitoring compliance with registration conditions. 

The NDIS registration framework is designed to promote and protect the human rights of people with disability by ensuring that registered NDIS providers meet certain standards of quality and safety.

The Provider Registration Rules set out the classes of supports for which an NDIS provider is required to be registered (mandatory registration) and conditions with which NDIS providers must comply to become and remain registered NDIS providers. The amendments in the Instrument address safeguarding issues in SIL and NDIS digital platform services.

Recent inquiries and reviews have identified significant concerns regarding the quality and safety of SIL and NDIS digital platform services.

In 2023, the NDIS Commission conducted an Own Motion Inquiry (OMI) into Aspects of Supported Accommodation in the NDIS, which found that SIL providers were not consistently delivering safe, high-quality supports. The inquiry identified that participants living in group arrangements and sharing supports may face an increased risk of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. Similarly, the NDIS Commission’s OMI into how platform providers operate in the NDIS market identified substantial safeguarding issues, including weaknesses in oversight, risk management and participant protections. Platform providers – providers delivering NDIS digital platform services – are commonly used to arrange supports such as community participation and personal care, yet current arrangements do not consistently ensure safety or quality. The inquiry found shortcomings in oversight, risk management and participant protections in these arrangements.

These findings are consistent with broader evidence from recent reviews, including the Disability Royal Commission, the NDIS Review, and the NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce, all of which have identified systemic quality and safeguarding issues in the delivery of SIL and platform-based supports.

The Instrument includes amendments to strengthen regulatory oversight of SIL and delivering NDIS digital platform services to address these identified risks to participant safety and improve the quality of supports.

The Instrument also introduces new SIL Practice Standards. The SIL Practice Standards will apply in addition to the NDIS Practice Standards specified in the current Schedule 1 (Core Module). This aligns with the NDIS Commission’s published action plan in response to the OMI which included a public commitment to develop and deliver NDIS Practice Standards for SIL.  

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 subsections 73B(1), 73T(1) and section 73H of the Act. The Minister has delegated these powers to the Commissioner.

Subsection 73B(1) of the Act provides that NDIS rules may require that specified classes of supports provided under participants’ plans are to be provided only by persons who are registered under section 73E to provide those classes of supports.

Subsection 73T(1) provides that NDIS rules may make provision for or in relation to standards concerning the quality of supports or services to be provided by registered NDIS providers. These standards are referred to as the NDIS Practice Standards.

Section 73H provides that NDIS rules may determine that each registration, or each registration included in a specified class of registration, is taken to include one or more specified conditions.

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.

Commencement

The Instrument commences on 1 July 2026.

Consultation

Extensive consultation informed the development of the Instrument.

Public consultation on mandatory registration was undertaken between 28 November 2024 and 7 March 2025. Feedback was gathered through surveys, written submissions, consultative forums, and targeted engagement with participants, providers, workers and subject matter experts. To further explore the issues identified in public consultation, targeted consultation was conducted via interviews with subject matter experts and participant focus groups. The NDIS Commission also held a platform provider consultative forum with 18 platform providers and other government agencies to further consult on the information gathered through survey and submissions.

Overall, feedback demonstrated broad support for strengthening oversight and improving quality and safety, alongside a clear emphasis on the need for careful implementation to minimise disruption to participants and the market.

In relation to SIL, stakeholders expressed strong support for the introduction of mandatory registration, alongside the development of enhanced Practice Standards specific to SIL. Feedback emphasised that implementation must be carefully managed to avoid disruption, particularly where providers may exit the market. In response, the Instrument includes a transitional period to respond to concerns about implementation and timeframes.

Feedback also consistently noted that registration alone would not ensure quality and safety, reinforcing the need for strengthened and support-specific SIL Practice Standards. This feedback has directly informed the Instrument, which introduces new SIL Practice Standards designed to embed participant‑centred, rights‑based approaches and drive consistent, high‑quality service delivery.

Consultation on platform providers similarly supported the introduction of mandatory registration conditions tailored to the nature of platform‑based service delivery. Participants highlighted the value of platforms in enabling choice, flexibility and control, but also reported ongoing concerns regarding quality and safety, with a clear expectation that platform providers should take greater responsibility for safeguarding. Workers and providers also broadly supported clearer accountability settings. Feedback emphasised the importance of a clear and robust definition of platform providers, and of ensuring obligations reflect the functions platforms perform, including facilitating connections between participants and workers.

Feedback also emphasised the importance of obligations that address safety, quality and transparency. Providers highlighted the importance of aligning the obligations of platform providers with obligations for operators of aged care digital platforms under the new Aged Care Act 2024, due to many providers operating across both the NDIS and Aged Care. Aged Care digital platforms have obligations to check and display information relating to compliance with applicable worker screening requirements, the credentials or qualifications that are stated on the Aged Care digital platform and general information about the processes undertaken to check an entity’s credentials or qualifications. In response to this feedback, the Instrument includes registration conditions for providers delivering NDIS digital platform services, adapted from the similar requirements under Aged Care, that require checking and displaying information relating to compliance with applicable worker screening requirements and the credentials or qualifications that are stated on the platform.

The ‘What we heard’ reports on both consultation processes and outcomes is available on the NDIS Commission’s website at https://www.ndiscommission.gov.au/about-us/ndis-commission-reform-hub/mandatory-registration

The NDIS Commission partnered with Inclusion Australia to develop the SIL Practice Standards alongside people with disability, ensuring the standards reflect the perspectives and experiences of people living in SIL environments. Through this process, a number of key areas of provider obligations and best practice specific to the delivery of SIL were identified for inclusion in the new standards. These include supported decision‑making, safeguarding, practice governance, and service agreements and tenancy management. Together, these elements are intended to strengthen participant autonomy, improve oversight and accountability, and ensure clarity in the delivery of supports within shared living environments.

The NDIS Commission also undertook targeted consultation with SIL participants to further inform the development of the standards. Feedback emphasised the importance of ensuring SIL supports are genuinely participant‑centred, grounded in human rights, and delivered in a way that is respectful, responsive and mindful of privacy. This input has informed the final design of the SIL Practice Standards, with a clear focus on promoting high‑quality supports that uphold the dignity, safety and independence of participants.

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 subsections 73B(1), 73T(1) and section 73H.

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, along with the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) and the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, have had the opportunity to review an exposure draft Instrument and provide comments and feedback.

All jurisdictions that provided feedback within the required 28-day consultation period supported the proposed amendments. One jurisdiction suggested amending the supported decision-making and governance SIL Practice Standards to ensure that SIL support enabling access to the community is reflected consistently across the standards. This suggestion was adopted and is reflected in item 5 of the Instrument.

Impact Analysis Statement

The Office of Impact Analysis assessed the materials provided as an Impact Analysis Equivalent (IAE) for this Instrument as sufficiently relevant to the policy options and proposal. The Impact Analysis, prepared as an equivalent Impact Analysis, is set out in Attachment C.

Details

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.

Details of the Instrument are set out in Attachment A.

The Instrument is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared under section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011. A full statement of compatibility is set out in Attachment B.

The Impact Analysis is set out in Attachment C.

Attachment A

Explanation of the provisions

Preliminary

Section 1 – Name

Section 1 provides that the Instrument is titled the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Provider Registration and Practice Standards) Amendment (Mandatory Registration and Other Matters) Rules 2026.

Section 2 – Commencement

Section 2 provides that the whole of the Instrument commences on 1 July 2026.

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 Provider Registration Rules.

Part 1—Assistance with supported independent living

Part 1 introduces amendments that require providers delivering assistance with supported independent living to be registered with the NDIS Commission. Providers delivering assistance with supported independent living are required to comply with new NDIS Practice Standards specific to assistance with supported independent living, as well as the Core Module Practice Standards.

Item 1 – Section 4

Item 1 amends section 4 to insert a definition of ‘assistance with supported independent living’, which refers to subsection 7(5) (see item 2). Section 4 is a definitions section which contains the definitions of terms used through the Provider Registration Rules.

Item 2 – After subsection 7(3)

Item 2 amends section 7, which outlines the classes of supports for which NDIS providers must be registered. Item 2 inserts new subsections 7(4) and 7(5) after subsection 7(3).

New subsection 7(4) provides that a person must be registered under section 73E of the Act to provide assistance with supported independent living to a participant.

New subsection 7(5) sets out when a person provides assistance with supported independent living. This includes when:

1.     the participant requires constant, or immediately available, person‑to‑person supports at all times during a day, or for a substantial portion of a day; and
2.     the assistance is provided, as needed, as a package of supports to assist the participant with, or to supervise, the tasks of daily life that enable the participant:
   1.       to live as autonomously as possible in the participant’s home; and
   2.     to access the community; and
3.     the assistance includes the management by the person of the package of supports, and of the supports provided in accordance with the package.

The term ‘supported independent living' is well-established in the disability sector and is well understood to refer to supports provided to people with disability in the circumstances outlined in new subsection 7(5). 

For clarity, assistance with supported independent living includes NDIS providers that manage home and living supports for participants who either live alone or live in a group living arrangement with other participants.

All three elements of the supported independent living definition contained in subsection 7(5) need to be met to be treated as supported independent living provider, and therefore the requirement to register applies.

Assistance with supported independent living does not include participants who organise their own supports (by choosing, employing and rostering their own support workers), even where they have higher support needs. It also does not include support coordinators, who have a distinct role in assisting participants to understand their NDIS plan and to strengthen their ability to design and build their supports.The purpose of these amendments is to require mandatory registration of NDIS providers delivering assistance with supported independent living supports to NDIS participants, reflecting the higher safeguarding risks associated with this support. These NDIS providers often provide support to NDIS participants who may have limited or no informal support networks (such as family and friends). Mandatory registration will enhance the NDIS Commission’s oversight and visibility of NDIS providers delivering assistance with supported independent living supports.

Items 3 and 4 – Subsection 20(3) (table)

Items 3 and 4 amend subsection 20(3), which is a table prescribing the applicable NDIS Practice Standards and the audit assessment method relevant to be registered, or remain registered, to provide a class of supports.

Item 3 amends column 1 of table item 15 in subsection 20(3) to insert the text ‘(other than assistance with supported independent living)’ after ‘arrangement’. As amended, the class of support in item 15 refers to ‘assistance with daily life tasks in a group or shared living arrangement (other than assistance with supported independent living)’.

The purpose of this amendment is to provide that the class of support ‘assistance with daily life tasks in a group or shared living arrangement’ no longer includes assistance with supported independent living supports.

Item 4 amends the table in subsection 20(3) to insert new item 38. New item 38 specifies ‘assistance with supported independent living’ as a separate class of supports in column 1, identifies Schedules 1 and 7A as the applicable standards in column 2, and specifies certification as the assessment method in column 3.

This means that an NDIS provider applying for registration for the class of support ‘assistance with supported independent living’ must be assessed by an approved quality auditor as meeting the standards specified in Schedules 1 and 7A, using the certification method. It also requires that providers registered to provide assistance with supported independent living comply with those standards on an ongoing basis.

Schedule 1 sets out the Core Module Practice Standards that apply to all registered NDIS providers delivering higher risk supports and services.

New Schedule 7A sets out additional NDIS Practice Standards specific to assistance with supported independent living (see item 5).

Item 5 – After Schedule 7

Item 5 inserts a new Schedule 7A—Module 5A: Assistance with supported independent living to specify standards relating to supported independent living supports.

The NDIS Practice Standards form a key part of the registration framework by setting out the quality and safeguarding requirements that registered NDIS providers must meet. Compliance with NDIS Practice Standards is assessed through certification audits at the point of registration and is subject to ongoing monitoring and audit to ensure continued compliance over time.

Section 1 – Application of standards to applicants, providers, participants and others

This section sets out to whom the standards in this Schedule apply.

Subsection (1) clarifies that this Schedule applies to a person who is applying to become a registered NDIS provider in the same way as it applies to a registered NDIS provider.

The legislative note in this section provides a cross-reference to the sections in the Instrument that set out the applicants and providers that must comply with the NDIS Practice Standards specified in this Schedule.

Subsection (2) provides that this Schedule applies to those persons set out in this subsection in the same way as it applies to a participant. The relevant persons are:

1.     a prospective participant;
2.     a person with disability receiving supports or services under the arrangements set out in Chapter 2 of the Act from a person (other than the Agency) referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of NDIS provider in section 9 of the Act;
3.     a person with disability receiving supports or services from a person included in a class of persons prescribed for the purposes of subparagraph (b)(ii) of the definition of NDIS provider in section 9 of the Act.

Section 2 – Standards relating to supported independent living supports

Section 2 sets out the matters specified in Schedule 7A. Schedule 7A specifies the NDIS Practice Standards relating to the provision of supports to assist with supported independent living.

Section 3 – Supported decision-making

Section 3 sets out the Standard that applies in relation to supported decision-making. The Standard intends to enable stronger choice and control for participants that need assistance with making decisions, ensuring participants can make genuine, informed decisions for themselves.

The Standard outlines that each participant is supported to understand and make genuine decisions for themselves. Each participant should be provided with accessible information, and decision-making support, about the supports and services delivered in their home and to enable them to access their community.

Section 4 – Safeguarding

Section 4 sets out the Standard that applies in relation to safeguarding. The Standard intends to confirm safeguarding expectations, clarifying that participants’ right to live free from abuse, neglect and exploitation extends to the home environment in which supported independent living supports are delivered.

The Standard outlines that each participant is supported to live in a safe, respectful and supportive home environment. Each participant should be supported to have adequate safeguards in place to mitigate harm at home and when participants access their community.

Section 5 – Practice governance

Section 5 sets out the Standard that applies in relation to practice governance. The Standard intends to ensure supported independent living workers have the necessary training, knowledge and skills to support each individual participant in their home and to enable them to access their community.

Participants should be supported by workers that have the knowledge of, and guidance to use, evidence informed practices that are tailored to the participant’s needs; and enable the provision of safe and high quality supports.

Section 6 – Agreements about tenancy, housing and support arrangements

Section 6 sets out the Standard that applies in relation to agreements about tenancy, housing and support arrangements. The Standard addresses instances where the participant’s rental tenancy agreement is managed by the same provider who is providing their supported independent living supports.

The Standard outlines that each participant who has a tenancy agreement with the provider is supported to understand how the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement interact with their service agreement with the provider. Each such participant should be supported by effective tenancy management and is able to exercise choice and control and their tenancy rights. For clarity, this Standard only applies where a provider is both the tenancy and service provider.

For example:

Ness is an NDIS participant who accesses supported independent living (SIL) supports from Provider Red, who is a registered NDIS provider. Ness has a service agreement with Provider Red to provide her SIL supports.

Ness lives in a rental property and receives her SIL supports in her home. Ness also has a rental tenancy agreement with Provider Red as she rents her home through Provider Red.

Under this Standard, Provider Red should support Ness to understand how her tenancy agreement interacts with her service agreement. Ness should be able to exercise choice and control in her supports. This includes but is not limited to, her right to provide feedback about her supports, or change her service provider, without impacting her rental agreement.

Ness should also be able to exercise her tenancy rights. For example, Ness should be able to raise repair requests on her rental home to Provider Red, without any impacts on her SIL support delivery.

Part 2—NDIS digital platform services

Part 2 introduces amendments that require providers delivering an NDIS digital platform service to register with the NDIS Commission. An 'NDIS digital platform service’ means a service that is provided to facilitate the provision of supports under participants’ plans on an NDIS digital platform.

Providers delivering an NDIS digital platform service are required to comply with the Core Module Practice Standards and with additional conditions of registration, including worker screening check requirements and the checking and display of certain information about persons providing supports on the platform.

Item 6 – Section 4

Item 6 amends section 4 to insert definitions of ‘NDIS digital platform’ and ‘NDIS digital platform service’. Section 4 is a definitions section containing terms used throughout the Provider Registration Rules.

The definition of ‘NDIS digital platform’ refers to section 5A (see item 7).

The definition of 'NDIS digital platform service’ means a service that is provided to facilitate the provision of supports under participants’ plans on an NDIS digital platform.

Item 7 – After section 5

Item 7 inserts new subsection 5A to specify the meaning of the term ‘NDIS digital platform’.

Subsection 5A(1) provides that an ‘NDIS digital platform’ means an online enabled application, website or system operated to facilitate the provision of supports under participants’ plans, where:

1.     the operator of the application, website or system acts as an intermediary for participants seeking to access those supports who interact with persons providing the supports via the application, website or system; and
2.     any of the following requires, and processes via the application, website or system, NDIS amounts under participants’ plans as payment for the provision of those supports:

1.       the operator of the application, website or system; 
2.     an associated entity (within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001) of the operator;
3.   a person contracted, whether directly or through one or more interposed persons or entities, by the operator or an associated entity (within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001) of the operator to process the payments.

The definition of an ‘NDIS digital platform’ is adapted from the definition of ‘aged care digital platform’ provided in subsection 187(1) of the Aged Care Act 2024. This is intended to support consistency in the way digital platforms are described in the care and support sector to address risks. This alignment improves visibility of these platforms and enables appropriate regulatory responses to be applied, ensuring that relevant risks are addressed and adequate safeguards are in place.

Subsection 5A(2) provides that an NDIS digital platform does not include an application, website or system that is not operated for the primary purpose of facilitating the provision of supports under participants’ plans.

This amendment ensures that providers who may otherwise meet the criteria in subsection 5A(1), but whose primary purpose is not facilitating the provision of supports under participants’ plans, are excluded. For example, providers operating primarily in home maintenance, ride share and accommodation service areas would not be captured as an NDIS digital platform.

Item 8 – Section 7

Item 8 amends section 7, which outlines the classes of supports for which NDIS providers must be registered. Item 8 inserts new subsection 7(6) after new subsection 7(5) (see item 2).

New subsection 7(6) provides that a person must be registered under section 73E of the Act to provide an NDIS digital platform service to a participant.

The purpose of this amendment is to require the mandatory registration of providers delivering NDIS services digital services, reflecting the increasing use of platform-based models to facilitate the provision of supports. Mandatory registration will enhance the NDIS Commission’s oversight of these services and support the safety and quality of supports delivered to participants.

Item 9 – At the end of Part 4

Item 9 amends Part 4, which outlines conditions of registration, to insert new section 13D setting out requirements for registered NDIS providers that provide an NDIS digital platform service.

Subsection 13D(1) provides that a registered NDIS provider that is registered to provide an NDIS digital platform service is subject to certain conditions.

Subsections 13D(2) to 13D(4) impose conditions relating to worker screening check requirements.

Subsection 13D(2) provides that the provider must not allow a person to represent via the platform that they can provide supports under participants’ plans unless:

1.     the person has given evidence to the provider that the circumstance mentioned in subsection (3) exists in respect of each individual covered by that subsection; and
2.     the provider is not aware that that circumstance has ceased to exist in respect of any of those individuals.

Subsection 13D(3) provides that for the purposes of subsection (2), the circumstance is that each of the following holds a clearance (however described) to work with people with disability:

1.     the person (if the person is an individual);
2.      each individual the person employs or otherwise engages to provide such supports.

Subsection 13D(4) provides that an individual holds a clearance for the purposes of subsection (3) at a particular time if:

1.     a decision has been made under an NDIS worker screening law in response to an application made by the individual for an NDIS worker screening check; and
2.     the decision has the effect that the individual is cleared to work with people with disability; and
3.     the clearance is in force.

Subsections 13D(5) to 13D(6) impose conditions requiring certain information about persons providing supports to be checked and displayed on the NDIS digital platform.

Subsection 13D(5) provides that the provider must check and display on the platform the information mentioned in paragraphs (6)(a) to (e), and display on the platform the information mentioned in subsection (6) in relation to each of the following:

1.     each person that represents via the platform that the person can provide supports to participants;
2.     each person employed or otherwise engaged by the person mentioned in paragraph (a) to provide such supports.

Subsection 13D(6) provides that for the purposes of subsection (5), the information to be checked and displayed for each such person includes:

1.     whether a banning order against the person is in force;
2.     whether a banning order (within the meaning of the Aged Care Act 2024) against the person is in force;
3.     whether a banning order (within the meaning of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act 2018 as in force at any time before the commencement of the Aged Care Act 2024) against the person is in force;
4.     that the person holds the credentials or qualifications that are stated on the NDIS digital platform for the person;
5.     if the person is an individual—that the circumstance mentioned in subsection (3) exists in relation to the person.
6.      general information about the processes undertaken in order to check the credentials or qualifications of the person for the purposes of paragraph (d).

The information required to be displayed is adapted from similar requirements for aged care digital platforms in subsection 188(1) of the Aged Care Act 2024. This reflects consultation feedback on the importance of aligning regulatory obligations across the NDIS and aged care sectors, particularly as some providers operate across both systems.

This amendment also responds to issues identified in the NDIS Commission’s OMI into how platform providers operate in the NDIS market. The inquiry found that participants often assumed that key safety and quality checks, such as worker screening and verification of qualifications, had already been undertaken by platform providers. By requiring providers to check and transparently display this information, the amendment supports participants to be informed consumers and to make informed choices about their supports. It also addresses gaps between participants’ expectations and existing platform practices, which may otherwise create increased safeguarding risks.

Item 10 – Subsection 20(3) (table)

Item 10 amends subsection 20(3), which is a table prescribing the applicable NDIS Practice Standards and the audit assessment method relevant to be registered, or remain registered, for each class of supports contained in column 1 of the table, respectively

Item 10 inserts new item 37 into the table in subsection 20(3). New item 37 specifies ‘providing an NDIS digital platform service’ as a new class of support in column 1, identifies Schedules 1 as the applicable standards in column 2, and specifies certification as the assessment method in column 3.

This means that an NDIS provider applying for registration for the class of support ‘providing an NDIS digital platform service’ must be assessed by an approved quality auditor as meeting the standards specified in Schedule 1, using the certification method. It also requires that providers registered to provide an NDIS digital platform service comply with those standards on an ongoing basis in order to remain registered.

Schedule 1 sets out the Core Module Practice Standards that apply to all registered NDIS providers delivering higher risk supports and services.

Requiring certification against the Core Module Practice Standards supports the consistent application of quality and safeguarding requirements, including governance, risk management and incident management, and ensures that providers providing an NDIS digital platform service are held to the same minimum standards as other higher risk NDIS providers.

Part 3—Change of ownership requirements

Part 3 introduces amendments that introduce new requirements relating to giving notice of certain events to the NDIS Commission. This includes an amendment to existing condition on registration requiring registered NDIS providers to give the NDIS Commission notice of certain events and changes to require notice be given to the Commissioner sooner.

These amendments include enhanced notification requirements, particularly where there is a change in ownership of the provider, or of a business operated by the provider, and introduce a new condition of registration requiring a change in ownership audit for certain providers.

Item 11 – Subsection 13A(2)

Item 11 amends section 13A, which provides that the registration of NDIS providers is subject to the condition that the provider must give notice of certain events. Item 11 repeals subsection 13A(2) and substitutes new subsections 13A(2), (3) and (4).

Section 13A is a condition of registration requiring providers to give the Commissioner notice of certain events contained in subsection (1). This includes a requirement at paragraph 13A(1)(d) to notify the Commissioner of a significant change in the organisation or governance arrangements of the provider.

Currently, subsection 13A(2) provides that notice of such an event must be given to the Commissioner in the form approved by the Commissioner and as soon as practicable after the event occurs.

New subsection 13A(2) will retain the requirement that notice of the events listed in subsection (1) must be given to the Commissioner in the form approved by the Commissioner.

New subsection 13A(3) provides that notice of a change mentioned in paragraph (1)(d) that occurs as a result of a change in ownership of the provider, or of a business operated by the provider, must be given to the Commissioner by the earlier of the following times:

1.     when the provider becomes aware that the change in ownership will occur;
2.     when a step or procedure occurs that is a necessary precondition to effecting the change of ownership.

New subsection 13A(4) provides that notice of any other event or change mentioned in subsection (1) must be given to the Commissioner by the earlier of the following times:

1.     when the provider becomes aware that the event or change will occur;
2.     when the event or change occurs.

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify and strengthen notification requirements for registered NDIS providers, including by introducing earlier notification obligations for certain events, including changes in ownership. This supports timely regulatory oversight by the NDIS Commission and enables more effective monitoring of risks associated with ownership changes including risks related to provider suitability and governance.

Item 12 – After section 13B

Item 12 inserts new section 13BA after section 13B, which introduces a condition of registration requiring a change in ownership audit for certain providers.

Subsection 13BA(1) sets out the circumstances in which this requirement applies. It applies to a registered NDIS provider where:

1.     the provider is registered to provide a class of supports for which, under the table in subsection 20(3), the assessment method for the applicable standards is certification; and
2.     a significant change in the organisation or governance arrangements of the provider occurs as a result of a change (the relevant change) in ownership of the provider or of a business operated by the provider; and
3.      during the 3‑month period beginning on the day after the day on which the relevant change occurs:

1.       the provider is not undergoing an audit described in section 13B; and
2.     the registration of the provider does not cease to be in force.

Paragraph (a) limits the application of this requirement to providers delivering classes of support that are subject to certification assessment. Paragraph (b) ensures that the requirement only applies where a significant change in the organisation or governance arrangements of the provider occurs as a result of a change (the relevant change) in ownership of the provider or of a business operated by the provider. Paragraph (c) clarifies that the requirement does not apply during the 3‑month period beginning on the day after the day on which the relevant change occurs where a provider is already undergoing a mid-term audit under section 13B or where the provider’s registration period is ending within the three-month period.

Subsection 13BA(2) provides that the registration of the provider is subject to the condition that the provider must undergo an audit in accordance with this section.

Subsection 13BA(3) provides that the audit must be carried out by an approved quality auditor using certification.

Subsection 13BA(4) provides that the audit must commence no later than:

1.     3 months after the day on which the relevant change occurs; or
2.     such longer period after that day as the Commissioner allows.

This amendment clarifies that the audit must be commenced within three months after the sale of the provider’s business, or within such longer period as the Commissioner allows. This is intended to provide flexibility where additional time may be required in particular circumstances.

Subsection 13BA(5) provides that for each class of supports mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) that the provider is registered to provide, the audit must assess whether the provider has met, and is meeting, the following applicable standards for the class of supports:

1.     the standards in Part 3 of Schedule 1;
2.     any standard for which a previous audit by an approved quality auditor identified a need for the provider to implement a corrective action plan.

This amendment ensures that the audit is limited and targeted specifically on the impacts of the sale of business on governance arrangements, focusing on governance and any previously identified areas of non-compliance.

Subsection 13BA(6) provides that the auditor must give a report of the audit to the Commissioner by the end of the period of 28 days after the audit is completed.

The purpose of this amendment is to require an earlier, targeted audit where a sale of business results in a significant change in organisation or governance arrangements of the provider. This supports timely regulatory oversight of risks associated with changes in ownership or control, reduces reliance on post-sale notification, and enables the Commissioner to assess the provider’s ongoing suitability and compliance. The amendment is consistent with existing regulatory expectations and operational practice and does not introduce new substantive standards beyond those already required to maintain registration.

Part 4—Other amendments

Part 4 makes minor and consequential amendments to the existing NDIS Practice Standards to clarify that they apply specifically to registered NDIS providers and to ensure consistency with terminology used in the Act.

Items 13 to 28 – Schedules 1 to 8

Items 13 to 28 make minor amendments to the NDIS Practice Standards set out in Schedules 1 to 8.

These amendments omit references to ‘a provider’ and substitute with ‘a registered NDIS provider’, which is a defined term in section 9 of the Act, in subclause 1(1) of each Schedule.

These amendments also repeal paragraph 1(2)(b) of each Schedule and substitute it with new paragraph 1(2)(b) which provides that ‘a person with disability receiving supports or services under the arrangements set out in Chapter 2 of the Act from a person (other than the Agency) referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of NDIS provider in section 9 of the Act’.

The purpose of these amendments is to clarify that the NDIS Practice Standards apply specifically to registered NDIS providers and to ensure greater consistency in terminology with the Act.

Part 5—Transitional provisions

Part 5 sets out application and transitional provisions to support implementation of the amendments made by the Instrument, including transitional arrangements for assistance with supported independent living, NDIS digital platform services, and change in ownership notification requirements.

Item 29 – Part 7

Item 29 amends Part 7, which contains application, saving and transitional provisions. Item 29 inserts section 32 into Part 7 to set out the application of the amendments made by the Instrument.

Subsection 32(1) defines key terms used in the section, including:

• ‘amending Rules’ to mean the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Provider Registration and Practice Standards) Amendment (Mandatory Registration and Other Matters) Rules 2026;
• ‘existing NDIS provider’ to mean a person or entity (other than a registered NDIS provider) who was an NDIS provider immediately before 1 July 2026; and
• ‘existing registered NDIS provider’ to mean a person or entity who was a registered NDIS provider immediately before 1 July 2026.

Subsections 32(2) and (3) set out the transitional arrangements in relation to the provision of assistance with supported independent living.

Subsection 32(2) provides for when the amendments made by Part 1 of Schedule 1 apply depending on the status of the provider, as follows:

1.     for existing registered NDIS providers—on or after the day (the transition day) on which the Commissioner makes a decision under subsection 73L(1) of the Act whether to vary the provider’s registration to include the specified class of support;
2.     for existing NDIS providers who, before 1 July 2026, were providing assistance with supported independent living (within the meaning of this Instrument as amended by the amending Rules) to a participant—on or after:

1.       in the case that the provider makes an application, before 1 October 2026, under subsection 73C(1) of the Act to be registered to provide the specified class of support—the day on which the Commissioner makes a decision under subsection 73E(1) of the Act on the application; or
2.     otherwise—1 October 2026;

1.      in any other case—on or after 1 July 2026.

Subsection 32(3) provides that if immediately before 1 July 2026, an existing registered NDIS provider was registered to provide the class of support specified in item 15 of the table in subsection 20(3); and the transition day for the provider occurs after 1 July 2026; then, despite sections 20 and 22, to remain registered to provide that class of support during the period between 1 July 2026 and the transition day, the provider must comply with the standards specified in Schedule 7A, as inserted by Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the amending Rules as if those standards were specified for the class of support specified in that item.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure continuity of registration for existing registered NDIS providers by requiring compliance with the new SIL Practice Standards during the transition period, where their registration is varied after 1 July 2026.

Table 1 – Transitional arrangements in relation to the provision of assistance with supported independent living

Subsection 32(4) and (5) sets out the transitional arrangements in relation to the provision of NDIS digital platform services.

Subsection 32(4) provides that amendments made by items 6, 7, 8 and 10 of Schedule 1 to the amending Rules apply in relation to the provision under a participant’s plan of the class of support specified in that Part as follows:

1.     for existing registered NDIS providers—on or after the day on which the Commissioner makes a decision under subsection 73L(1) of the Act whether to vary the provider’s registration to include the specified class of support;
2.     for existing NDIS providers who, before 1 July 2026, were providing an NDIS digital platform service (within the meaning of this Instrument as amended by the amending Rules) to a participant—on or after:

1.       in the case that the provider makes an application, before 1 October 2026, under subsection 73C(1) of the Act to be registered to provide the specified class of support—the day on which the Commissioner makes a decision under subsection 73E(1) of the Act on the application; or
2.     otherwise—1 October 2026;

1.      in any other case—on or after 1 July 2026.

Subsection 32(5) provides that the requirements relating to conditions of registration for NDIS digital platform services (inserted by item 9 of Schedule 1) apply on or after 1 January 2027.

Table 2 – Transitional arrangements in relation to the provision of NDIS digital platform services

Subsection 32(6) and (7) sets out the transitional arrangements in relation to change of ownership requirements.

Subsection 32(6) provides that the amendments made by Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the amending Rules apply in relation to a change in ownership of a registered NDIS provider, or of a business of the provider, that occurs on or after 1 July 2026.

Subsection 32(7) clarifies that if a notice is required to be given under subsection 13A(3) of the Instrument (as amended by the amending Rules) in respect of a change in ownership that occurs on or after 1 July 2026; and the time mentioned in paragraph 13A(3)(a) or (b) for giving that notice occurs before 1 July 2026; then, despite that subsection, the notice must be given to the Commissioner as soon as practicable on or after 1 July 2026.

For example, if a registered NDIS provider becomes aware of a change in ownership prior to 1 July 2026, but the relevant notification timeframe would otherwise fall before commencement on 1 July 2026, the provider must notify the Commissioner of this as soon as practicable on or after 1 July 2026.

Table 3 – Transitional provisions in relation to change of ownership requirements on registered NDIS providers

Attachment B

STATEMENT OF COMPATIBILITY WITH HUMAN RIGHTS

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

NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME (PROVIDER REGISTRATION AND PRACTICE STANDARDS) AMENDMENT (MANDATORY REGISTRATION AND OTHER MATTERS) RULES 2026

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Provider Registration and Practice Standards) Amendment (Mandatory Registration and Other Matters) Rules 2026 (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 (Provider Registration and Practice Standards) Rules 2018 (Provider Registration Rules).

The Provider Registration Rules promote and protect the rights of people with disability by establishing clear requirements for the delivery of supports and services by registered NDIS providers. The Provider Registration Rules incorporate the NDIS Practice Standards, which set standards and expectations for service provision. The NDIS Practice Standards are framed around participant-centred outcomes that ensure services are safe and participant-centred, uphold dignity, choice and control, and require safeguards and quality systems that support consistent, high-quality outcomes across the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

The Instrument amends the Provider Registration Rules to:

• introduce mandatory registration of Supported Independent Living (SIL) providers and providers delivering NDIS digital platform services;
• establish new conditions on registration, including change of ownership requirements and requirements on providers delivering NDIS digital platform services; and
• introduce new NDIS Practice Standards specific to SIL.

These amendments strengthen the NDIS registration framework applying to higher risk supports and services and are intended to better safeguard the rights and safety of people with disability receiving supports and services under the NDIS.

The Instrument supports the effective operation of the NDIS by strengthening safeguards, quality, and accountability in SIL and NDIS digital platform services through mandatory registration, including by requiring providers to meet minimum standards.

Background

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (the Act) establishes the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (the Commission) as an independent regulator responsible for safeguarding people with disability from harm arising from poor quality or unsafe supports or services delivered under the NDIS.

The Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (the Commissioner) is responsible for regulating the quality and safety of services and supports, including through the registration of NDIS providers and monitoring compliance with registration conditions. 

The NDIS registration framework is designed to promote and protect the human rights of people with disability by ensuring that registered NDIS providers meet certain standards of quality and safety.

Human rights implications

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

• the right to an adequate standard of living – article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD);
• the right to the highest attainable standard of health – article 12 of the ICESCR and article 25 of the CRPD;
• the right to protection from exploitation, violence and abuse – article 16 of the CRPD;
• the right to social security – article 9 of the ICESCR and article 28 of the CRPD; and
• the right to work – article 6 of ICESCR.

The Instrument seeks to protect and promote the rights of persons with disability by strengthening safeguards, quality and accountability in higher‑risk NDIS supports and services, and by ensuring that supports are delivered safely and in a manner that respects and promotes participants’ dignity, autonomy and wellbeing.

The right to health and right to an adequate standard of living

Articles 11 and 12 of the ICESCR and articles 25 and 28 of the CRPD recognise the rights of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living and enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health.

The Instrument engages the right to health and right to an adequate standard of living as SIL involves personal care, health‑related support and daily living assistance that directly affect participants’ health and standard of living.

The Instrument promotes the right to health and right to an adequate standard of living by requiring NDIS providers to meet minimum standards of competence, capability and service delivery, supporting safe, appropriate and high‑quality care. Improved oversight and quality assurance mechanisms reduce the risk of harm and support better health outcomes for participants.

The Instrument also promotes the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health by strengthening safeguards and improving the quality and safety of SIL and NDIS digital platform services. In particular, the Instrument requires registered NDIS providers to meet minimum standards of competence and capability, and to deliver supports in a way that is safe, appropriate and responsive to participants’ needs. These measures are particularly important for people with disability receiving personal care and daily living supports in shared living environments, as they help ensure that supports are delivered in a manner that supports participants to achieve the highest attainable standard of health, safety and quality of life in their home.

The right to protection from exploitation, violence and abuse

Article 16 of the CRPD recognise the right to protection from exploitation, violence and abuse. The CRPD also requires that positive measures be taken to prevent exploitation, violence and abuse of persons with disabilities (article 16(2)) and that all facilities and programmes designed to serve persons with disabilities are effectively monitored by independent authorities in order to prevent the occurrence of all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse (article 16(3)).

The Instrument strengthens safeguards in SIL and NDIS digital platform services, which often involve high levels of personal care, shared living arrangements and inherent power imbalances.

Mandatory registration and new SIL Practice Standards and registration conditions are directed at reducing the risk of exploitation, violence and abuse in these settings. The Instrument promotes the protection of participants from harm by requiring NDIS providers to meet enforceable quality and safeguarding standards.

The right to social security

Article 9 of the ICESCR recognises the right to social security and social insurance. Article 28(2) of the CRPD recognises the right of persons with disability to social protection and seeks to ensure equal access by persons with disabilities to appropriate and affordable services, devices and other assistance for disability-related needs.

The Instrument engages the right to social security as it supports the effective operation and integrity of the NDIS by strengthening the integrity, quality and accountability of supports and services funded under the NDIS. By ensuring public funding supports safe and effective services, the Instrument contributes to the proper functioning and sustainability of the scheme. This protects NDIS participants’ ongoing access to the NDIS and promotes the effective administration of the NDIS.

The right to work

Article 6 of ICESCR recognises the right of every person to the opportunity to gain a living by work which they freely choose or accept. This right also applies to workers who work with people with disability, including NDIS participants.

The right to work is engaged by the introduction of mandatory registration and associated requirements may affect providers’ ability to operate within the NDIS market. In particular, item 9 of Schedule 1 of the Instrument provides conditions on registration for providing an NDIS digital platform service and includes requirements relating to worker screening, verification of compliance, and the provision of information about workers delivering supports. These requirements may impose administrative obligations or restrict participation where individuals do not meet safeguarding requirements.

The paramount objective of the Instrument is to protect people with disability from experiencing harm arising from unsafe supports or services under the NDIS. Consistent with this objective, introducing mandatory registration and new registration conditions will better protect NDIS participants from harm and ensure the quality and safety of supports. This does not prevent participation in the market where providers meet minimum standards.

To the extent that the Instrument limits the right to work, those limitations are reasonable, necessary and proportionate to the legitimate objective of protecting the safety, rights and wellbeing of people with disability.

Conclusion

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Provider Registration and Practice Standards) Amendment (Mandatory Registration and Other Matters) 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. To the extent the Instrument impinges on the right to work, the impositions are reasonable, necessary and proportionate to achieving the protection of the rights and safety of people with disability and confidence in the quality and integrity of auditing in the NDIS.

Louise Glanville, Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission

Attachment C

Impact Analysis Equivalent Supplementary Analysis

See following page.

Contents

Supplementary Impact Analysis

1. What is the problem you are trying to solve and what data is available?

Supported Independent Living

Platform Providers

2. What are the objectives, why is government intervention needed to achieve them, and how will success be measured?

The case for government intervention

Key objectives

Success measures

3. What policy options are you considering?

Option 1: Maintain the current voluntary registration process for SIL and platform providers (status quo)

Option 2: Implement mandatory registration and registration conditions under existing framework (preferred option)

Option 3: Await design and implementation of future reform

4. What is the likely net benefit of each option?

Multicriteria analysis – impact on stakeholders

Multicriteria analysis - impact against reform objectives

Regulatory Burden Estimate

Supported Independent Living - Regulatory Burden Estimate

Platform Provider - Regulatory Burden Estimate

Regulatory impacts on key stakeholders (option 2)

Multicriteria Analysis and Regulatory Burden Estimate Summary

5. Who did you consult and how did you incorporate their feedback?

Mandatory registration consultation

Previous consultation

6. What is the best option from those considered and how will it be implemented?

Option selection

Implementation

7. How will you evaluate your chosen option against the success metrics?

Supplementary Impact Analysis

1.     What is the problem you are trying to solve and what data is available?

Recent reviews and inquiries have revealed serious quality, safeguarding and integrity risks with platform providers and supported independent living (SIL). These findings emerge from the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission’s (NDIS Commission) Own Motion Inquiries (OMI), the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (Disability Royal Commission), the Independent Review into the NDIS (NDIS Review)[1] and the NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce (NDIS Taskforce[2]).

These major reviews have highlighted critical gaps in participant quality and safeguarding, including:

      The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability revealed serious cases of abuse and neglect within the NDIS scheme and called for stronger regulation, especially in services involving personal care and accommodation.

      The Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme, published in December 2023, identified the need for a more consistent approach to registration. Particularly, one that applies to all providers based on the level of risk involved, identified the need for a more consistent approach to registration.

      The NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce, published in August 2024, identified some types of providers as higher risk. They proposed that all providers of Supported Independent Living (SIL) and home and living supports be registered within 12 months. The taskforce also recommended platform providers be required to be registered, based on the services provided.

Multiple reviews and inquiries including the Disability Royal Commission, the NDIS Review and the NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce have identified similar quality and safeguarding issues in the way certain SIL and Platform Provider services are being delivered, including risks to participants’ safety and quality of care. These reviews have recommended strengthening oversight and regulation of SIL and platform providers to improve the quality and safety of these supports.

To address these critical concerns, the NDIS Commission is proposing several legislative changes as part of an initial set of reforms to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Provider Registration and Practice Standards) Rules 2018 (NDIS Provider Registration Rules). The rule making powers for these Rules have been delegated by the Minister for the NDIS to the NDIS Commissioner under section 201A of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (NDIS Act) in the current instrument of delegation, National Disability Insurance Scheme (Commissioner—National Disability Insurance Scheme rules) (Minister) Delegation 2025 (dated 24 November 2025).

The current regulatory oversight approach for SIL and platform providers, has proven inadequate in ensuring proper oversight of these supports. This has resulted in widespread issues including poor provider capability and inadequate safeguarding practices.

The NDIS Taskforce also emphasised a fundamental issue with the current approach:

Without registration, NDIS providers are not visible to the NDIS Commission or the [National Disability Insurance Agency] NDIA. This hinders market intervention when needed and reduces the regulatory intelligence available to improve market performance. The Taskforce heard from various stakeholders, including unregistered providers, that the NDIS Commission should have oversight of all providers under the Scheme (NDIS Taskforce Advice, p 21).

Further, the lack of regulation and monitoring of unregistered providers has directly contributed to safeguarding failures across the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS):

The lack of effective regulation and monitoring of services is a contributing factor in this violence and abuse, including through the lack of visibility and regulation of unregistered providers as well as a lack of effective regulation for registered providers. (NDIS Taskforce Advice, p 22).

The current regulatory gap undermines the NDIS Commission’s ability to intervene and safeguard participants from harm. Unless legislative action is taken to strengthen oversight of SIL and Platform Provider services, these supports will remain vulnerable to provider misconduct, inadequate safeguarding and poor outcomes for people with disability.

The previous Minister for Government Services and the NDIS, the Hon Bill Shorten MP, announced on 16 September 2024 the mandatory registration of all platform providers, support coordinators and SIL providers as a priority, to strengthen the quality and safety of supports.

Subsequently, on 18 December 2025, Senator Jenny McAllister, Minister for the NDIS announced that mandatory registration for disability service providers in supported independent living (SIL), as well as platform providers, will commence from 1 July 2026.

Supported Independent Living

SIL is a type of in-home support for people with higher support needs, who need a significant amount of help throughout the day, seven days a week, including overnight support. These supports are often delivered 24/7 in participants' homes and in shared living arrangements. SIL participants have an average NDIS plan budget of $444,000, in the year ending 31 December 2025, which is significantly higher than the $91,600 average for non-SIL participants. The Taskforce found evidence of providers exploiting participants such as targeting those with large plans, providing poor quality services, and in some cases, evicting participants once their funding had been exhausted.[3]

The NDIS Commission’s OMI into aspects of supported accommodation (supported accommodation OMI) published in 2023, found specific concerns regarding quality and safety, and identified systemic issues in group home settings, including instances of violence, abuse and undue influence by support workers. It identified the need for specific regulation of these support arrangements to improve quality and safety, particularly regarding workforce capability and participants' ability to exercise choice and control. The supported accommodation OMI also found that 85% of all reportable incidents occurred in group home settings.[4] The closed nature of group home settings often leaves participants isolated from community and natural supports, with limited external oversight and difficulties in making complaints.[5]

The NDIS Taskforce Advice, published in August 2024, identified some types of providers as higher risk. They proposed that all providers of SIL and home and living supports be registered within 12 months.

Consultations, combined with the supported accommodation OMI findings and advice from the NDIS Taskforce, have informed our proposed improvements to in-home supports in group living arrangements, where support is shared and settings where SIL is provided in smaller ratios of care, such as individual support provision.

SIL market data

As outlined in Table 1, in Q2 financial year 2025-26, there were 35,928 participants accessing SIL from one of 7,032 providers, based on payments data. While 94% of participants received those supports from a registered provider (49% of this provider market), 6% of participants received supports from an unregistered provider (51% of this provider market). This means that over half of all SIL providers operate with limited regulatory oversight and suggests that many unregistered providers are likely small-scale operations, potentially including sole traders and partnerships.

Table 1: Market distribution of SIL participants and providers - Q2 FY2025-26 (1 October to 31 December 2025).

Does not include Short Term Respite, Medium Term Accommodation, Individualised Living Options, and Assistance with Daily Life in an Aged Care Facility

*The participant total is a unique count of participants. Some participants received services and supports from both registered and unregistered providers and are therefore counted in both categories, but only once in the total. Furthermore, percentages for the registered and unregistered participants are calculated using the total unique count. As some participants received services and supports from both registered and unregistered providers, the combined percentages may exceed 100%. 

Platform Providers

Platform providers are providers that use profile-based platforms via an app or a website, to connect NDIS participants with workers to deliver NDIS supports.

The NDIS Commission’s Own Motion Inquiry into how platform providers operate in the NDIS market (Platform Provider OMI) was published in 2023. During the Platform Provider OMI, the NDIS Commission consulted with close to 1,500 people, with 40% of those being people with disability. Participants reported that while platform providers allow them to choose who comes into their home and when, more is needed to be done to improve service quality and safeguards in this part of the NDIS market. The Platform Provider OMI, uncovered circumstances where participants had negative experiences, felt commodified and were unable to have their complaints heard by their platform provider. Issues were raised relating to privacy and information sharing. The Platform Provider OMI found that participants and workers had a poor understanding of their service relationship, which impacted the delivery of safe and good services and that it was difficult for participants to understand the quality and value of the services provided. Analysis of payment data, undertaken for the Platform Provider OMI, indicated that more than half of the payments for services associated with registered platform providers were for assistance with personal activities (54.3%) followed by community participation (33%).[6]

An evaluation of the Platform Provider OMI was conducted by the NDIS Commission, with findings informing the Platform Provider Mandatory Registration Consultation Paper in 2024. Key findings include:

      The platform provider market continues to grow rapidly, including the size, number and complexity of providers and the number of NDIS participants accessing supports through platform providers.

      The Platform Provider OMI helped clarify understanding of obligations and expectations of platform providers. However, more oversight and a targeted approach to platform providers is needed to promote good and safe supports. 

      A consistent approach to regulating platform providers across the NDIS Commission and engagement with other regulators is essential to addressing the issues identified in the Platform Provider OMI.

      “Gigification” is not unique to the NDIS, however the NDIS presents unique quality and safety challenges.

Platform Provider market data

As outlined in Table 2, in Q2 FY25-26, there were 132,860 active linked workers to the known 20 platform providers operating in the NDIS market. 63% of linked workers are linked to a registered platform provider and 37% of workers are linked to an unregistered provider (50% of this provider market).

10 providers (50% of the platform provider market) are registered to deliver at least one class of support. Of those 10, 8 are registered for classes of support that require a certification audit, while 2 are registered only for classes of supports that require a verification (desktop) audit. This shows just under half of all platform providers operate with limited regulatory oversight.

Table 2. Market distribution of platform providers - Q2 FY2025-26 (1 October 2025 to 31 December 2025)

*The participant total is a unique count of participants. Some participants received services and supports from both registered and unregistered providers and are therefore counted in both categories, but only once in the total. Furthermore, percentages for the registered and unregistered participants are calculated using the total unique count. Because some participants received services and supports from both registered and unregistered providers, the combined percentages may exceed 100%. 

**The active linked workers total is a unique count of workers. Some workers delivered services and supports from both registered and unregistered providers and are therefore counted in both categories, but only once in the total. Furthermore, percentages for the registered and unregistered workers are calculated using the total unique count. Because some workers delivered services and supports from both registered and unregistered providers, the combined percentages may exceed 100%. 

***Registered providers are responsible for ensuring the information the NDIS Commission has about worker screening is kept up-to-date and accurate. Unregistered providers may also choose to link workers who have a worker screening. 

****Platform providers have been identified by the NDIS Commission in a manual search based on the definition of Platform Provider used in its Own Motion Inquiry. 

2.     What are the objectives, why is government intervention needed to achieve them, and how will success be measured?

The case for government intervention

The findings of the NDIS Review, Disability Royal Commission, NDIS Taskforce and several NDIS Commission inquiries have all identified systemic failures that cannot be addressed without regulatory intervention. With 51% of SIL providers and 50% of platform providers operating without registration, significant safeguarding gaps exist for people with disability receiving these supports.

The regulatory gap is particularly concerning given the vulnerability of many participants accessing these supports and the closed nature of many service environments. Reviews and inquiries have found that the power imbalance between providers and participants in these contexts means that reliance on participant choice alone is not enough to drive quality improvement.

To address these concerns and regulatory gap, the NDIS Commission will introduce mandatory registration of SIL and platform providers as well as additional conditions on registration of platform providers. The introduction of mandatory registration will better safeguard participants and address concerns regarding the quality of higher risk NDIS supports and services by requiring SIL and platform providers to meet minimum quality and safeguarding standards.

Key objectives

The primary goal of introducing mandatory registration and imposing conditions on registration is to better protect NDIS participants from harm and exploitation. These changes will address quality, safeguarding and integrity risks by requiring SIL and platform providers to lift quality, capability, and transparency.

Currently, unregistered providers can deliver services with limited oversight by the NDIS Commission, exposing participants to inconsistent service quality, unsafe conditions and financial mismanagement. These reforms will impose clear, enforceable requirements to be a registered provider to deliver these supports to address these gaps. This will increase participant safety, service quality and transparency for participants receiving higher-risk supports.

The need for mandatory registration

The introduction of mandatory registration aims to safeguard participants and address concerns regarding the quality of services by requiring SIL and platform providers to meet minimum quality and safeguarding standards. Key goals of mandatory registration include:

      Stronger safeguards: ensuring all providers meet minimum standards and are subject to regulatory oversight.

      Improved quality and consistency: setting clear expectations for provider competence.

      Greater transparency and accountability: giving the NDIS Commission better visibility of who is delivering services and an increased accountability of services delivered via platforms.

Participants accessing SIL are at a significantly higher risk of harm due to the closed nature of group home settings. Given the safety risks highlighted, the Government announced that mandatory registration will be introduced for SIL as a priority, consistent with the recent findings of the NDIS Taskforce which recommended urgent registration of SIL and home and living supports under the existing registration framework.[7]

As more participants are now accessing supports through platforms, there is a clear need to address challenges. Currently, platform providers are not required to be registered with the NDIS Commission. Those platform providers who are registered with the NDIS Commission apply to be registered for the class of support delivered using their platform. The platform service they offer is not defined in the NDIS Act or NDIS Rules. Defining platform providers and requiring them to be registered will support a better and consistent understanding of platform provider, worker and participant roles and responsibilities.

Mandatory registration of SIL and platform providers is a key step towards strengthening the oversight of these market segments to ensure the services and supports are safe and of high quality. 

Success measures

Success will be measured through quantitative and qualitative indicators including:

Participant safeguarding and outcomes

• Reduction in harm and improved safety for participants engaging with higher-risk supports

      Improved participant experience and adherence to the quality expectations set out in NDIS Practice Standards

• Better identification and management of emerging compliance and risk trends.

Provider quality and compliance

• Percentage of previously unregistered providers successfully registered

      Compliance with NDIS Practice Standards and Quality Indicators

      Improved provider capability to deliver quality supports.

Financial integrity

      Improved provider accountability through strengthened oversight.

Regulatory transparency

• Improved visibility of provider activity

      Strengthened regulatory decision making through audit data.

3.     What policy options are you considering?

There are three policy options for consideration.

Option 1: Maintain the current voluntary registration process for SIL and platform providers (status quo)

By maintaining the current voluntary registration process for SIL and platform providers, unregistered providers would continue to operate with limited NDIS Commission oversight, with the NDIS Code of Conduct as a minimum requirement to adhere to.

Recent reviews informed by subsequent public consultations, have indicated that the status quo should not continue. The NDIS Review highlighted that registration is currently only mandatory for a limited number of higher-risk support types, and that the market of unregistered providers is larger than originally expected:

Unregistered providers are not required to meet any specific standards beyond the basic expectations in the NDIS Code of Conduct…. This means that there are many providers ’flying below the radar’ with limited regulatory oversight. This leaves participants potentially exposed to risk — particularly those who have complex needs or circumstances. (NDIS Review Final Report, p 207-208)

The Disability Royal Commission and NDIS Commission’s Own Motion Inquiry into Aspects of Supported Accommodation identified systemic issues of violence, abuse and undue influence by support workers in group home settings. Further oversight through mechanisms like mandatory registration has been a consistent recommendation.

The current registration requirements do not define platforms or recognise their role in linking participants and supports. Without greater clarity on the function of platform providers, ambiguity of the roles and responsibilities of the platform, worker and participant will continue.

Option 2: Implement mandatory registration and registration conditions under existing framework (preferred option)

Strengthening quality and safeguards for NDIS participants through implementing mandatory registration requirements for all SIL and platform providers was announced by Senator Jenny McAllister, Minister for the NDIS, on 18 December 2025.

Implementing mandatory registration and new registration conditions would address the recommendations from recent reviews and reports calling for stronger oversight and regulation of these higher-risk supports. The NDIS Taskforce, recognising the significant risks posed by SIL supports, recommended registration for SIL as a priority. Similarly, the Disability Royal Commission and NDIS Review emphasised the importance of registration as a safeguard for people with disability.

Provider registration is a critical safeguard for people with disability. It gives the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (NDIS Commission) more information about the quality and safety of a provider’s service delivery. Limited regulation and oversight of unregistered providers can pose safety risks to people with disability (Disability Royal Commission Disability Services Final report - Volume 10, p 317).

Additionally, the evaluation of the Platform Provider OMI published in the Platform Provider mandatory registration consultation paper identified that a consistent approach to regulating platform providers across the NDIS Commission is essential to addressing the issues identified. These issues include inconsistent and insufficient safeguards, absence of worker suitability and qualification checks, poor understanding of rights and responsibilities, misuse of personal information, and overpricing of services and supports.

SIL registration conditions

Currently SIL supports fall under the ‘assistance with daily life tasks in a group or shared living arrangement’ class of support (0115) under the NDIS Provider Registration Rules. There are also supports other than SIL that fall within class 0115 such as Short-Term Accommodation and Assistance, Medium Term Accommodation and Individualised Living Options. Costs for SIL may be claimed across several support categories, but the default is 0115 class of support: Assistance with daily life tasks in group or shared living arrangements.

To implement mandatory registration for SIL, a new class of support called Assistance with Supported Independent Living will be created, with all providers delivering SIL supports under this category required to be registered. This will reduce the SIL cohort for mandatory registration to mostly group living arrangements, where supports are shared, it will also include those settings where SIL is provided in smaller ratios of care. It will minimise disruption of arrangements in other home and living settings claimed under support category 0115, consistent with the policy settings enabled by the NDIA’s price arrangements and pricing limits and SIL operational guidelines.  

Platform provider registration conditions

The registration conditions for platform providers have been designed based on consultation with participants, providers, other Government Agencies and the disability community more broadly.

Defining platform providers and requiring them to be registered will support a consistent understanding of platform providers, their workforce and participant roles and responsibilities.  It is proposed that the NDIS Commission will amend section 7 of the NDIS Provider Registration Rules to include a mandatory requirement for providers to be registered where operating a ‘NDIS digital platform’. Providers who meet the definition of a ‘NDIS digital platform’ will be required to register for ‘NDIS digital platform service’ (a new class of support). This class of support will require a certification audit against the core module of the NDIS Practice Standards. The proposed definition has been adapted from the definition of ‘aged care digital platform’.

The following conditions of registration is also proposed to be introduced for ‘NDIS digital platforms services’:

1.        NDIS digital platform service providers to only allow providers and workers to use the NDIS digital platform who have undertaken a NDIS worker screening check.  
2.        NDIS digital platform service providers to check and display the following information on their NDIS digital platform:

      banning orders;

      credentials or qualifications that are stated by the provider or worker on the NDIS digital platform;

      NDIS worker screening check for workers;

      general information about the processes undertaken in order to check the provider or worker’s banning orders, credentials or qualifications and NDIS worker screening check for workers.

There will be a mechanism that will allow the exclusion of mainstream platform providers (e.g. rideshare, maintenance platforms) from the requirement to be registered.  

During consultation, it was raised the importance of aligning the obligation of platform providers with obligations for operators of aged care digital platforms under the new Aged Care Act, due to many providers operating across both NDIS and Aged Care. Aged care digital platforms have obligations to check and display information relating to compliance with applicable worker screening requirements, the credentials or qualifications that are stated on the Aged Care digital platform and general information about the processes undertaken in order to check an entity’s credentials or qualification. [8]

Option 3: Await design and implementation of future reform

The NDIS Review and NDIS Taskforce have recommended implementing a Graduated Risk Proportionate Regulatory Model (stated as regulatory model or graduated risk proportionate model). The Disability Royal Commission also recommended increased proportionate regulatory requirements. The Graduated Risk Proportionate Regulatory Model would introduce changes to registration categories to support tailored regulation based on risk.

Each registration category outlines specific regulatory requirements and associated obligations that respond to emerging and long-standing quality and safety issues. However, designing and implementing the recommended regulatory model will be complex, will likely take several years to develop, and is subject to Government decisions and approvals. Option 2 allows for mandatory registration and registration conditions under the existing framework, which is also able to be considered in any future state regulatory model.

Deferring implementation of mandatory registration until such time, as the broader Graduated Risk Proportionate Regulatory Model is developed, would maintain the status quo in the interim period, continuing to leave participants in these higher-risk settings without any additional safeguards.

4.     What is the likely net benefit of each option?

A multicriteria analysis (MCA) has been undertaken to evaluate the three policy options being considered. The MCA uses a sliding scale for scoring with largely adverse impacts to stakeholders being rated as -3 and largely beneficial impacts to stakeholders being rated as +3.

Given the complex nature of the NDIS market and the interplay of social, economic and regulatory factors, many of the most significant benefits of these reforms are difficult to quantify in fiscal terms. The human cost of exploitation, abuse and poor service quality experienced by participants cannot be adequately captured purely through quantitative methods. The full benefits may not be realised until changes have been fully implemented and may, in any case, be preventative in nature.

Multicriteria analysis – impact on stakeholders

Table 3: MCA overall impact of options on stakeholders.

Based on the summation of the ratings, option 1 is likely to have a negative net impact of -5, primarily harming participants and their support networks. Option 2 has a positive net impact of +4, benefiting participants, carers, supporters and families despite some costs to providers. Option 3 is likely to have a negative net impact of -3 due to timing constraints, with moderate negative impacts for most stakeholders.

While option 2 creates moderately adverse impacts for service providers, these are outweighed by the moderately to largely beneficial impacts for NDIS participants, and their carers, supporters and families.

Multicriteria analysis - impact against reform objectives

Table 4 below provides an estimate of the benefits for each of the 3 options against the reform objectives detailed in question 2. This assessment considers both immediate and long-term impacts, with particular attention to the vulnerability of participants in higher-risk support settings. The criteria have been weighted equally in this analysis, recognising that participant safety, service quality, governance and transparency are all fundamental to an effective disability support system. This analysis focuses on the outcomes for participants and the integrity of the NDIS Scheme, rather than administrative burden.

Table 4: MCA overall impact of options against reform objectives.

Participant safeguarding and outcomes

Option 1 leaves participants significantly exposed to harm, particularly in closed settings where oversight is limited. This approach receives a -3 score as multiple reviews, including the Disability Royal Commission, have documented extensive evidence of violence, abuse and neglect occurring in these settings. With 51% of SIL providers and 50% of platform providers operating without registration, participants remain vulnerable to poor practices without adequate safeguards. Option 2 would substantially improve participant protection through compliance expectations with minimum quality standards, as outlined in the core module Practice Standards and supplementary Practice Standards for providers registered to deliver SIL supports. This approach directly implements the recommendations made by the NDIS Taskforce, the Disability Royal Commission and various consultations. Whilst the eventual regulatory model outlined in option 3 may offer tailored safeguards, it would extend the current risk exposure for several years as it undergoes design and implementation.

Provider quality and compliance

Option 1 will continue to perpetuate widespread quality inconsistencies. Unregistered providers are only required to meet the NDIS Code of Conduct requirements, creating a system where participants often receive support from unregistered providers without enforceable quality assurance mechanisms. Option 2 would establish consistent quality expectations for all SIL and platform providers that will further improve service quality outcomes for participants and strengthen provider capability. Option 3 could eventually introduce appropriate, risk-based requirements however maintains current inconsistencies during the development phase.

Financial integrity

Option 1 has allowed serious financial mismanagement issues to develop, such as evidence of SIL providers targeting participants with large plans. Option 2 introduces important safeguards that protect participant choice and control and reduces opportunities for providers to exercise undue influence over participants. Option 3 would allow problematic financial practices to continue during the extended design and transitional timeframe to the new model.

Regulatory transparency

Option 1 limits visibility of unregistered providers, hindering intervention by the NDIS Commission when problems arise. Option 2 creates visibility of all SIL and platform providers to develop and maintain any conflicts of interest. Option 3 neither improves nor worsens transparency in the near term, resulting in a neutral score.

Based on this analysis, option 2 achieves a positive score of +6, representing beneficial outcomes across all key reform objectives and provides the highest level of positive impact to affected stakeholders.

Regulatory Burden Estimate

The Regulatory Burden Estimate (RBE) follows the guidance and costings advice provided by the Office of Impact Analysis (OIA). As per the guidelines of the OIA, costs presented will not significantly vary over time and the impact of the change in the first year can be treated as the average impact of change to the sector. The NDIS Commission intends to continue providing registration at no cost to providers, however, is aware that there are costs associated in obtaining registration. 

Providers of NDIS supports incur regulatory and other costs, including the cost of undertaking an independent third-party audit and costs associated with ensuring quality and safety of supports for people with disability. These may include professional registration (in the case of specialised services, like therapeutic supports), professional development for workers, working with children checks and NDIS worker screening checks.

The regulatory reform of the proposed measures is expected to affect providers in different ways, depending on the size of their organisation, their current registration or non-registration status and other factors. Costs associated with acquiring and maintaining registration have been considered in the calculation of the regulatory burden for NDIS providers (businesses), community and individuals (NDIS participants). Further explanation on the costs, including data sources and limitations of the regulatory burden estimate developed, have been summarised in the section below.

Regulatory Burden Estimate for Option 1 and 3

As outlined in question 3, option 1 proposes no change to the market. Therefore, the current voluntary registration process and registration conditions for SIL and platform providers would be maintained. On the other hand, option 3 defers implementation of mandatory registration, until a broader Graduated Risk Proportionate Regulatory Model is developed.

Both option 1 and 3 would maintain the status quo either in the long term or the interim period until further policy change. As already outlined in the paper, this would continue to leave participants in higher-risk settings without any additional safeguards.

As option 1 and 3 have no immediate changes to the sector, no additional costs would be incurred by providers, participants or the community.

Regulatory Burden Estimate for Option 2 (preferred option)

The RBE for the preferred option, option 2, is outlined for the reform areas detailed in this proposal – SIL and platform providers.

In the calculation of the regulatory burden costs, the RBE includes the following factors:

• Administrative costs: including cost estimates of administrative functions relating to notifications to the NDIS Commission of certain activities, linkage of workers with worker screening clearances and costs associated with undertaking audits.
• Substantive costs: including substantive cost estimates of functions related to meeting regulatory requirements, such as providing training to employees to meet regulatory and compliance requirements.
• Delay costs: application and approval delays, which may occur when undertaking worker screening checks, preventing a worker from working for a registered provider while they are waiting for the outcome of their application.  There will also be delay costs in future, beyond transitional arrangements, for SIL and Platform Providers who apply for registration and must wait for a quality audit and for their application to be determined before they can deliver SIL or Platform Provider services and supports.  As at Quarter 2, 2025-26, new certification applications for registration were decided in 47 days (median). The days to decide have been trending rapidly downward since July 2024, and will continue to minimise delay impacts. While NDIS payment data is available, there is no available data on provider profit margins to determine the cost of a pending registration decision.  

The following assumptions have been relied on when developing the model, including:

      The changes proposed will have no direct regulatory impact or costs to participants (individuals) or the community.

      Currently, platform providers are not required to be registered with the NDIS Commission. Those platform providers who are registered with the NDIS Commission only apply to be registered for the specific class/es of support delivered using their platform.

      Data collected relies on the number of reportable incident notifications made to identify the level of regulatory burden. These incident reports are not directly linked to specific roles within a provider organisation, rather to the NDIS Commission’s unique registration identification number of the business. As such, the number of reports is an estimate of the average numbers of reports expected to be submitted by a provider. 

      The number of workers per SIL provider size category has been estimated based on distribution of payment and number of participant data, and market analysis, including the NDS Workforce Census Report 2024.[9]

• Administrative and substantive compliance costs are variable; therefore, an estimated value of duration has been allocated.

      State and Territory Worker Screening Units, who conduct screening checks on behalf of the NDIS Commission, have provided their application delay times. As providers are not bound by geographical locations, the average national application delay time for worker screening checks has been used. No card no start requirements exist only in Queensland, South Australia and Victoria. The proportion of screened workers in these jurisdictions (58.6%) versus nationally has been used to calculate the delay costs.

      The NDIS Commission does not control audit pricing. The cost of an audit is assessed by an approved quality auditor, based on the size and scale of the organisation. The average cost of a certification audit has been used.

      The regulatory burden measurements are calculated on a ten-year bases.

The total 10 year costs outlined in the Tables 5 and 7 below are calculated using the OIA Regulatory Burden Measurement Framework and considers the limitations and guidelines above. The default labour costs for business or community organisations are based on the recommended rate by the OIA at $48.67 per hour.

Supported Independent Living - Regulatory Burden Estimate

Table 5: RBE resulting from policy option 2 for Supported Independent Living (SIL)

The proposed regulatory changes outlined in option 2 will impact 2,301 participants and 3,562 unregistered SIL providers.  They represent 51% of the providers impacted by the change outlined in option 2 (SIL providers). The 3,562 SIL providers support 2,301 participants who represent 6% of participants accessing SIL supports. Some participants may receive support from multiple SIL providers, which could include more than one unregistered provider or a combination of registered and unregistered providers.

As demonstrated in Table 5, there is no additional cost to participants and the community by the implementation of the proposed regulatory change under option 2. The estimated regulatory burden for the 3,562 impacted SIL providers is an annual average of $2.59 million, representing an estimated annual average cost per provider of $794.56.

The majority of the providers impacted by the proposed measures are extra small and small providers with quarterly payments under $250,000 (85%). Based on the average SIL participant plan of $444,000, it is anticipated that many of the unregistered providers would be providing supports to 1 participant, and many participants would be engaging more than one SIL provider. It is assumed that part of the reason for this is that the current market has a higher proportion of medium and large providers already registered via the certification process.

Actual cost per provider will fluctuate depending on size due to smaller providers having a proportionately smaller workforce and less participants, resulting in lower workforce related regulatory burden activities, audit costs and reportable incidents. Small providers are still likely to be impacted by the regulatory burden and be in a limited financial position to meet the same minimum benchmarks as medium and large providers. The analysis has shown that majority of the small providers are delivering unregistered SIL supports. The registered SIL market includes a sizable proportion of large providers who support the majority of participants (94%) accessing this type of support. 

As shown by the distributional analysis on Table 6, most of the unregistered SIL providers are categorised as small or extra small providers. These providers have less participants and less workers than the larger SIL providers meaning that they would have smaller reportable incident, worker and audit costs.

Table 6: Unregistered SIL providers distributed by size - Q2 FY2025-26 (1 October 2025 to 31 December 2025)

Platform Provider - Regulatory Burden Estimate

Table 7. RBE resulting from policy option 2 for Platform Provider

The proposed regulatory changes outlined in option 2 will impact 20 platform providers. the 20 platform providers support 22,553 participants. Some participants may receive support from multiple platform providers, however they have only been counted once.

Mandatory Registration impact on providers currently registered under other categories of support via certification audit

8 of 10 providers who are registered to deliver other categories of supports have done so via certification audit and therefore their registration can be varied to include a digital platform service without requiring a new audit.

Mandatory registration impact on currently unregistered providers and those providers registered under other categories of support via verification audit

Unregistered providers will be required to be registered via a certification audit against the core module. Those providers who are currently registered and have only undertaken a verification audit, will need to vary their registration resulting in them having to undertake a certification audit against the core module.

Impacts of new conditions of registration

Platform providers will need to ensure they only allow providers and workers to use their NDIS digital platform who have undertaken a NDIS worker screening check.

Registered Providers are already required to ensure workers in a risk-assessed role or key personnel role have NDIS worker screening clearance and comply with the core module of the NDIS Practice Standards.

All providers whether registered or unregistered, including platform providers, have an obligation under the Code of Conduct to: 

      provide supports and services in a safe and competent manner with care and skill,

      act with integrity, honesty, and transparency. 

The condition on registration for NDIS digital platform service providers to check and display the information, seeks to strengthen these obligations, by providing information about the processes undertaken in order to check the provider or worker’s, credentials or qualifications.  

As demonstrated in Table 7 above, there is no additional cost to participants and the community by the implementation of the proposed regulatory change under option 2. However, across the known Platform Providers market, the estimated annual average regulatory burden is $131,626.48. The cost to individual business would vary depending on Platform Provider size, existing Platform Provider registration status and worker screening cost to providers and workers on the platform.

Regulatory impacts on key stakeholders (option 2)

Regulatory impacts on participants (individuals) and the community

None of the options proposed will have a regulatory burden impact on participants (individuals who participate in the NDIS scheme). Although we expect some providers to exit the market following the changes, there are a range of strategies in place to ensure there is minimal impact on participant’s ability to access supports and services.

There are no regulatory oncosts for the community. The proposed changes will only have a direct regulatory burden and cost impact on platform providers and NDIS providers offering SIL supports and services, platform providers and providers and workers providing supports through digital platform.

Regulatory impacts on SIL providers

The estimated annual average regulatory burden for the 3,562 impacted providers is $2.59 million, which equates to an annual average of $794.56 per provider. This cost relates to the process of becoming a registered NDIS provider and maintaining registration through regulatory obligations. The total regulatory burden estimate of $25.92 million is split and will vary across providers ranging in sizes. Noting a provider may provide supports for more than one service type.

Regulatory impacts on platform providers

The estimated annual average regulatory burden for the 20 impacted platform providers is $131,626.48. This cost relates to the process of becoming a registered NDIS provider and maintaining registration through regulatory operations. The total regulatory burden of $1.32 million is split across platform providers of a range of sizes, existing platform provider registration status and providers and workers engaging on the platform.

Table 8: Summary of annual average regulatory burden for SIL and Platform Providers (Option 2: Implementing all mandatory registration and new registration conditions under an existing framework)

Table 9: Summary of total regulatory burden for SIL and Platform Providers (Option 2: Implementing all mandatory registration and new registration conditions under an existing framework)

Multicriteria Analysis and Regulatory Burden Estimate Summary

Registration is a preventative safeguard designed to increase oversight of the market and ensure providers establish good practices and have the correct competencies to deliver services and supports. Improving the level of registration in the market is an important regulatory lever that is used by the NDIS Commission to hold providers to account and ensure conformity to minimum benchmarks of service quality and safety.

As per the MCA discussed earlier, option 2 has a positive net impact benefiting participants, carers, supporters and families, despite some cost to providers. Option 2 establishes consistent standards for all platform providers and providers delivering SIL and introduces conditions on registrations that will further improve service quality and provider capability.

The estimated regulatory burden cost to implement all proposed regulatory measures under option 2 is estimated to be $20.68 million. It is important to note that the estimated costs captured above apply for the current market and impacted providers transitioning to the new requirements and conditions of registration.

While option 1 and 3 present no additional regulatory costs, it does not address the recommendations from multiple reviews and inquiries discussed in this analysis. Several major reviews have highlighted critical gaps in participant quality and safeguarding, with stakeholders calling for an approach that strengthens and improves quality and safety of services in the disability sector.

Although option 2 will come with additional regulatory burden on NDIS businesses, the benefits significantly outweigh the costs. The impact of proposed changes under option 2 will affect providers in different ways, depending on the size of their organisation, their current registration status and other factors. As market stewards, the NDIS Commission will continue to monitor the market, engage with participants, providers and other stakeholders, and develop plans to implement the necessary changes required, with as minimal disruption as possible. However, the non-cost benefits of introducing these reforms, such as increased benchmarks for safeguarding, significantly outweigh the costs identified.

5.     Who did you consult and how did you incorporate their feedback?

Mandatory registration consultation

Public consultation on mandatory registration commenced on 28 November 2024 and closed on 7 March 2025. The NDIS Commission released consultation papers outlining proposed mandatory registration requirements for platform providers and providers of SIL, seeking feedback from stakeholders via survey or written submission. The purpose of the consultation process was to determine how best to implement mandatory registration for platform providers and providers of SIL, rather than whether to proceed with mandatory registration.

Consultation Papers and “What we heard” reports on the consultations are available on the Mandatory Registration page of the NDIS Commission Reform Hub.  

Supported Independent Living mandatory registration consultations

The consultation for mandatory registration of SIL builds on the significant consultation and engagement that has occurred with the disability community through the multiple reviews and inquiries discussed throughout this paper. Specifically, the Taskforce’s recommendation that “all providers of Supported Independent Living (SIL) and Home and Living supports should be seen as requiring registration as a matter of urgency”. As such, the focus of additional consultation was on understanding how the proposed changes may impact NDIS participants and their access to supports, and providers and how they manage the transition to these approaches. 

Survey responses - participants and their carers, guardians or family members

Participants and their carers, guardians or family members sought a comprehensive range of supports and information delivered in accessible and meaningful formats, including:

• Access to clear, easy-to-understand guides explaining the registration process and its impact on participants, including case examples
• Understanding the timeline of the registration process and key dates for implementation
• Access to a dedicated helpline to answer questions about the registration process and its implications
• An uplift in provider communication that will provide regular updates about their registration status and any potential changes to services
• Ensuring they are informed about how to provide feedback or raise concerns during the transition period.

Survey responses - providers

Feedback on the proposed transition arrangements indicated that only 59% of providers agreed the proposed arrangement would assist their transition, while 22% disagreed and 17% were unsure. With regards to the transition timeframes (3-month application period and 12-month audit completion), 66% considered them achievable, while 14% disagreed and200% were unsure.

Providers identified several issues that impact on their ability to transition to new requirements such as:

      Limited resources (e.g., staff, time, finances) to complete the registration process

      Complexity of the registration requirements

      Concerns about the cost of compliance with new regulations.

Providers strongly agreed with the provision of all NDIS Commission proposed supports and information described in the survey that would assist their transition to mandatory registration including:

      Clear guidance on registration requirements and compliance

      Training and workshops on meeting NDIS Practice Standards

      Access to templates and tools for policy development

      Dedicated support channels for questions and clarifications

      Networking opportunities with other providers going through registration

      Regular updates on the registration process and timeline.

Written submissions

From the written submissions, there was a total of 20 unique submissions received from:

• disability sector and community organisations (7)
• providers (8) and provider peaks (2)
• participants (1)
• other (auditor and workforce representative organisation) (2).

Written submissions were generally supportive of mandatory registration of SIL. Additional insights captured from written submissions included the following:

      Importance of ensuring continuity of supports while the registration process is underway for participants who access services from unregistered providers.

      Strong support for expedited timeframes for implementation, including broad support for proposed timeframes (up to 12 months to complete audit)

• Transition to registration must be informed by meaningful and purposeful conversation with participants and providers, and consider impacts on workers
• NDIS Commission wrap around, accessible supports and guidance is required to help prepare and deliver this process
• Registration alone does not assure quality and safety. The changes in registration requirements must be supported by enhanced and culturally sensitive practice standards and strong monitoring and enforcement
• Registration process requires overhaul in general

The implementation plan for the changes will be developed taking into consideration this valuable stakeholder feedback and will include market readiness activities and ongoing consultation. Further information regarding the implementation strategy is outlined in question 6.

To further explore the issues identified in public consultation, targeted consultation was conducted via interviews with subject matter experts and a participant focus group. Because SIL is core to housing and daily life, participants and providers agreed reforms relating to SIL settings must be managed carefully to avoid destabilising supports. Some disruption is expected if SIL providers choose not to register, but transition design can minimise harm including proactive planning and support to transition to new arrangements successfully. Smaller and specialist providers also require targeted assistance to meet new requirements.

Platform providers mandatory registration consultations

The NDIS Commission received a total of 68 submissions (26 submissions in response to our platform provider consultation paper published in November 2024, 42 submissions relating to changes to registration more broadly, some as part of a targeted campaign) and 299 survey responses from stakeholders including 60 NDIS participants/carers, guardians and family members, 137 workers and 72 providers/others.

We consulted with providers, via a platform provider Consultative Forum (Consultative Forum). The Consultative Forum adopted a whole of government approach to reform and included 18 different platform providers and other government agencies.

Survey responses - participants and their carers, guardians or family members

We heard in the OMI Inquiry that platform providers play an important role in supporting participant’s choice, control and flexibility. During the consultation on mandatory registration, participants told us they continue to choose to use platform providers as it provides them choice over who delivers the service (85%), flexibility (67%) and control over the cost (59%).

During the mandatary registration consultation, we heard that there continues to be concerns around the quality and safety of services delivered via platforms. Nearly half (46%) of all participants who completed the survey reported having a negative experience with a platform in the last 12 months. Participants, workers and providers saw platform providers as having an active role in supporting the quality and safety of services delivered via a platform provider. 74% of participants said that platform providers are responsible for safeguarding participants.

When considering a support delivered through a platform provider, most participants said it was somewhat or very important that the worker holds a NDIS Workers screening (87%), has experience with people with disability (95%) and has the right attitudes and values (97%).

Survey responses – workers

Workers chose to connect to participants via platform providers for safety (43%), flexibility (43%), choice (38%) and having the Platform Provider handle payment (35%).

There are a variety of relationships between workers and platforms, with 50% of workers on platforms identified as being a sole trader or business owner accessing a platform, 27.5% identified as a NDIS provider accessing a platform, 15% as an employee for the platform and 5% see themselves as contractor engaged by a platform.  

Workers also expect platform providers to be accountable for supporting quality and safety with 70% of workers surveyed saying that platform providers are responsible for the quality of services delivered. 61% of workers agree with our approach to defining platform providers. 

Written submissions

From the written submissions, there was a total of 26 unique submissions received from:

      NDIS Participants/ their carers and guardians (3)

      disability sector peaks and community organisations (12)

      Platform providers (7) and provider (1)

      Support worker (1)

      Government agency/ org (1) and

      other (workforce and carer representative orgs, Unions) (1)

Insights captured from written submissions included the following:

      Platform providers should be defined by their shared characteristics.

      Submissions broadly supported the characteristics outlined to define platform providers and wanted an approach that ensures platforms cannot easily avoid registration by changing features or models, suggesting a clear definition and designation of powers (with oversight).

      Submissions highlighted the many functions of platform providers. From 14 submissions, 25% outlined Platforms as a service provider, 50% as intermediaries and 25% as both.

      Regulation needs to support quality, safety, choice and innovation. ​

      Platform providers have a key role in the quality and safety of services and supports delivered through their platform ​

      Registration and obligations need to be informed by the function of the platform. Submission highlighted the need to ensure obligations are clear and concise

      Clear communication and timelines from the NDIS Commission are required to ensure a smooth transition to mandatory registration.

Platform Provider Industry Consultative Forum

The insights from the survey and submissions as well as insights from the Platform Provider OMI informed the conversation with Industry Consultation forums on: 

      Platform provider definition

      Obligations of platform providers

      Implementation of mandatory registration

Key themes

      Attendees generally supported the characteristics that was identified as important to defining platform providers. Describing the function of a platform, linkage to market and description of the platform were identified as the most important characteristics. There was broad support for the definition to capture anyone who facilitates connection and charges a fee.

      The need for platforms to balance innovation with safeguards to maintain service quality and participant trust. Attendees suggested that core obligations should include worker screening, incident management, complaints handling, and adherence to the NDIS Code of Conduct.

      The importance of platforms having flexibility to meet standards proportionate to their size and risk profile. 

      Support for quality safeguards being built into platform registration, rather than requiring registration for every class of support delivered.

      Transition timeframes were generally considered reasonable with a need to ensure time for Aged Care reforms to be implemented first.

Targeted Platform Provider consultations

The registration design (as outlined in option 2) was tested with Participants in three targeted focus groups. The majority of respondents supported the registration model as it would preserve service diversity and protect choice and control. Participants felt the design was proportionate and adaptable and embedded safeguards where risks are higher. There were mixed views on how mainstream platforms (such as those providing rideshare, meal delivery, maintenance services, and short-term accommodation services) should be considered. Registration was seen by some as impractical for mainstream platforms, however there was recognition that any platform dealing with NDIS funding should be covered and overseen in some way.

Previous consultation

The consultations described above on the proposed measures build on previous consultation activities undertaken by the NDIS Commission and numerous inquiries. These activities have shaped the Consultation Papers, recommended options and raised issues regarding policy design and implementation that will be actively considered in the way the proposed changes are implemented Key reviews and inquiries include:

      The NDIS Commission Own Motion Inquiries into supported accommodation 

      The NDIS Commission carried out an Own Motion Inquiry into how platform providers operate in the NDIS market.

      The Disability Royal Commission (2019-23) final report and three issues papers relating to issues regarding safeguarding and the safety of services in group homes, receiving around 100 submissions in response from disability representative organisations, NDIS providers and others.

      The NDIS Review (2022-23) final report and two papers relating to quality and participant safeguarding, which considered changes to safeguarding and regulatory requirements. In total, the Review received over 3,900 submissions from individuals and organisations over the course of the Review.

• The NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce (2024) consulted on the design and implementation of a graduated risk-proportionate regulatory model and a provider risk framework. They received over 700 submissions from people with disability, their families and advocates, NDIS providers and other stakeholders.

6.     What is the best option from those considered and how will it be implemented?

Option selection

Three main options were considered:

• Option 1 - Maintain the current voluntary registration process for SIL and platform providers (status quo)
• Option 2 - Implement mandatory registration and registration conditions under existing framework (preferred option)
• Option 3 - Await design and implementation of future reform 

Considering the benefits related to the proposal (outlined in question 4), the preferred policy option is option 2 - to implement mandatory registration requirements for all SIL and platform providers. Appropriate conditions on registration for SIL and platform providers would also be applied.

The changes proposed in option 2 are designed to address serious quality, safeguarding and integrity issues by supporting greater visibility and oversight of the NDIS market and an uplift in the quality and capability of NDIS supports. For NDIS participants, they will benefit from improved quality and strengthened safeguarding supports delivered in a timely manner to address documented systemic failures.

Implementation

Implementation of the reforms will require legislative amendments to the NDIS Provider Registration Rules. Transitional arrangements and requirements will be included in the NDIS Provider Registration Rules to provide legal certainty to providers. These transitional arrangements will reflect a staged approach to transition of currently registered SIL and platform providers and consider feedback on implementation considerations raised during consultation.

The NDIS Commission will undertake market readiness activities, working closely with key stakeholders such as the NDIA and Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (DHDA) to ensure the sector is provided with a sufficient lead time for the commencement of the reforms. Beyond commencement of the legislative amendments, the NDIS Commission will continue to undertake a range of activities to support implementation including the development of educational materials and delivery of information sessions on the changes and new requirements, as suggested by stakeholders in consultation.

Implementation plan

A comprehensive market strategy and implementation plan has been developed to prepare and support the sector for the reforms. In summary, the implementation plan includes:

      Establishing a staged transitional registration pathway for currently unregistered SIL providers and all platform providers. This will include providing implementation support to providers and participants during transition to ensure minimal market disruption and service continuity for participants.

• Establishing a communication and engagement strategy for participants and providers to ensure the NDIS Commission is communicating clearly and regularly about regulatory reform. This will include communication of timeframes on when new obligations would apply through the Regulatory Reform Roadmap, contact centre and feedback pathways and FAQs and other resources published on the NDIS Commission Reform Hub and through various other channels.
• Development of market readiness resources to ensure key stakeholders have transparent, clear and timely guidance documents and other supporting materials to meet new registration obligations.

      Regular cross-Government engagement to harmonise approaches and identify issues. The NDIS Commission has been working closely with the NDIA, DHDA state and territory governments and other key stakeholders to align plans and processes to support providers and participants to prepare for the changes. The NDIS Commission will work with the NDIA to determine whether access to SIL supports have been disrupted, if contingency plans have been implemented to manage risk, and what strategies are in place to ensure no loss of essential supports.

• Ongoing consultation to enable design input and testing of proposed systems changes with stakeholders to ensure the changes and their delivery are user centred.
• Continuous market monitoring to assess the impact of regulatory reform, enable early identification of potential adverse impacts and the development of timely response strategies. This will include assessment of audit impacts and liaison with key industry bodies to work through any issues identified. 
• Internal capability uplift through training and education, development and modification of key policies and resources, sequencing of systems changes and operational adjustments.  

7.     How will you evaluate your chosen option against the success metrics?

Success metrics for the mandatory registration of SIL and platform providers are outlined in question 2. An Evaluation Program Logic framework has been developed for these reforms. This framework outlines key evaluation considerations to assess the outcomes of these reforms across multiple domains to guide data collection, stakeholder engagement, and analysis.

The reforms aim to ensure unregistered SIL and platform providers engage in the new mandatory registration process. Evaluation questions assess the extent to which eligible providers have initiated or completed the registration process and any barriers to readiness. In parallel, the audit and certification are under review. Evaluation focus in this area includes whether providers are aware of updated requirements, have scheduled audits aligned with the core module Practice Standards, and supplementary SIL Practice Standards, and received sufficient implementation support to meet their obligations. These questions will help determine if foundational registration compliance steps are being achieved across provider cohorts.

The reforms seek to strengthen the NDIS Commission’s regulatory intelligence capabilities. Consideration will be given to whether visibility over SIL and Platform Provider activity has improved following registration and whether new audit data for providers is supporting more informed regulatory decisions. In addition, the framework evaluates the extent to which emerging compliance and risk trends are being identified and addressed more effectively. These insights are essential for ensuring that regulatory processes remain proactive and responsive.

To improve the quality and safety of supports and services, the evaluation will investigate whether newly registered SIL and platform providers are meeting competency and quality standards. It considers whether audit and registration processes are effectively determining whether providers are meeting safeguarding expectations and if regulatory engagement is contributing to improved provider capability. Service quality will be examined through the lens of participants’ experiences- particularly the delivery of person-centred services and provider adherence to the NDIS Practice Standards.

An important long-term outcome is the reduction of harm and improved safety for participants engaging with higher-risk supports such as SIL supports. The evaluation will utilise complaint and incident data to measure this and will include consultation on whether participants feel safer with newly registered SIL and platform providers. Additionally, consideration will be given as to how audit alignment with the core module Practice Standards and supplementary SIL Practice Standards have contributed to stronger oversight of SIL and platform providers, particularly in relation to managing service quality and risk.

The transition to registration of all SIL and platform providers aims to improve financial and operational governance. Evaluation questions assess whether providers are demonstrating stronger risk controls and whether provider registration generally is fostering greater transparency for participants and families. The evaluation also considers whether these reforms have enhanced public trust in the NDIS regulatory framework and improved provider accountability through strengthened oversight mechanisms.

Evaluation undertaken by the NDIS Commission of these metrics will use both quantitative data from NDIA payment systems, NDIS Commission quarterly performance data and qualitative feedback from participants, providers and other impacted stakeholders, including disability advocacy organisations, co-regulators and NDIS Commission staff. Data measures, including baseline, will be established and outlined for all outcomes and success metrics.

Formal post-implementation evaluation will be conducted at the 1 year, three-year and five-year time-points, with ongoing monitoring throughout the transition period to identify and address any emerging issues.

The evaluation provides a comprehensive structure for monitoring the impact of mandatory registration of SIL and platform providers. By addressing key questions across domains, the evaluation supports ongoing learning and evidence-based decision-making for continued reform of the NDIS.

[1] Independent Review into the NDIS, 2023

2 NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce Report, 2024

[3] NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce Report, 2024, p 49

[4] NDIS Commission Own Motion Inquiry into Aspects of Supported Accommodation in the NDIS, 2023, p 46

[5] NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce Report, 2024, p 29-30

[6] NDIS Commission Own Motion Inquiry into how Platform Providers operate in the NDIS Market, 2023, p 27-28

[7] NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce Report, 2024, p 5

[8] Aged Care Act 2024 - Federal Register of Legislation

[9] NDS_Workforce_Census_Report_2024.pdf [https://nds.org.au/images/State_of_the_Disability_Sector_Reports/NDS_Workforce_Census_Report_2024.pdf], p 5.