Chapter 1Introduction
1.1On 26 November 2025, Senator the Hon Anthony Chisholm introduced the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025 (the bill) to the Senate, on behalf of the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS/Scheme), Senator the Hon Jenny McAllister (Minister).
1.2On 27 November 2025, the Senate referred the bill to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee (the committee) for inquiry and report by 20 March 2026.
Structure of the report
1.3This report contains two chapters. This chapter sets out:
the purpose of the bill;
background information relating to the development of the bill and calls for the strengthening of the powers of the independent regulator, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (NDIS QSC);
an overview of the bill's key proposed amendments; and
general information outlining the conduct of the inquiry and consideration of the bill by other parliamentary committees.
1.4The report's second chapter summarises the views put forward in evidence about the bill and concludes with the committee's views and recommendation.
Purpose of the bill
1.5The bill would amend the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (NDIS Act) to deter NDIS providers from providing poor quality and unsafe services and supports, through a strengthened and fit-for-purpose penalty and offences framework. The bill would also ensure that unsuitable persons can be excluded from providing NDIS services by 'adding categories of people against whom a banning order can be imposed'.
1.6In addition, the bill would restrict a person from engaging in promotional conduct in connection with the NDIS where that conduct undermines the objects or principles of the NDIS Act, by adding a new power allowing the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner (Commissioner) to issue an anti-promotion order.
1.7The bill would strengthen the powers of the NDIS QSC to allow it to obtain relevant information from NDIS providers and other persons within 'appropriate, shorter than minimum timeframes'.
1.8For those NDIS participants wishing to withdraw from the Scheme, the bill proposes additional safeguards and communication options, including a 90-day cooling-off period, and enables the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) to move to an 'entirely electronic claiming system for NDIS providers'. Lastly, the bill would clarify that 'plan variations can result in an increase or decrease in total funding amounts in plans'.
1.9Overall, the amendments proposed by the bill address priority measures required by the NDIA and the NDIS QSC to protect the NDIS and its participants from non-compliant activity. This will enable the NDIS QSC to undertake swifter action in investigating and prosecuting those who significantly harm NDIS participants, and enable the NDIA to strengthen operational elements of the Scheme to increase its integrity.
Background
1.10The bill is the second tranche of legislative amendments to the NDIS Act, following the recommendations of both the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (Royal Commission), and the 2023 Independent Review into the NDIS (Independent Review).
1.11Both the Royal Commission and the Independent Review identified 'significant regulatory gaps' limiting the NDIS QSC's ability to detect and respond to 'concerning behaviours and poor practices promptly' and also revealed 'significant failures by NDIS providers to prevent abuse, neglect and exploitation, or to respond effectively to complaints and incidents'.
1.12The bill is also a result of National Cabinet's consideration of the Independent Review, where it was agreed that the Commonwealth would work with the state and territory governments to:
… implement legislative and other changes to return the NDIS to its original intent of supporting people with permanent and significant disability as part of the larger landscape of supports outside of the NDIS.
1.13In presenting the bill to the Senate, the Minister observed that where there is fraud in the NDIS, there is often 'violence, abuse and neglect'. The bill aims to give the regulator the 'powers it needs to be more responsive to protect participants from abuse, neglect and exploitation'. The bill's Explanatory Memorandum (EM) also states that it will 'enable the NDIA to strengthen operational elements to the Scheme to increase its integrity'.
1.14The EM explains that the bill reflects the recommendations of the Independent Review, which 'emphasised the importance of the NDIS Commission having the powers and approach to proactively and effectively regulate the market'. The EM continues:
The Bill will strengthen the NDIS Commission's capacity to detect, prevent and respond to breaches of obligations under the Act. The Bill will address current concerns of safety and non-compliance within the Scheme and resolve existing structural issues that minimise the effectiveness of regulatory action to combat abuse, neglect and exploitation that continue to cause significant harm to participants in the NDIS.
1.15In a joint submission, the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (DHDA), the NDIA and the NDIS QSC also explained that the bill would implement 'critical integrity measures required to safeguard the NDIS' and would 'deliver on the government's commitment to support the financial sustainability of the NDIS through cracking down on non-compliance in the Scheme'.
Consultation
1.16The bill's proposed amendments were developed following consultation with the public, state and territory governments, and disability sector peak organisations. Consultation was also facilitated by the NDIS QSC through a consultation paper, survey and Ministerial town hall event in late 2024, which was attended by over 1100 people.
1.17The Minister advised that through the consultation, the NDIS QSC heard that 'tougher penalties for mistreatment and poor behaviour are required', that 'providers must be accountable for their staff and the services they provide to participants', and that 'predatory and unethical advertising of NDIS supports must be identified and stopped'.
1.18The EM notes that throughout consultation, stakeholders were 'largely supportive of the measures that sought to strengthen accountability' and improve NDIS supports. Further consultation in mid-2025 saw stakeholders put forward 'strong opinions about how to safeguard NDIS participants'. In response to feedback, the bill introduces a 90-day cooling-off period after a participant notifies the NDIA that they wish to withdraw from the NDIS—as opposed to the originally proposed cooling-off period of 28 days.
Key provisions of the bill
1.19The bill consists of two schedules. Schedule 1 contains the amendments to the NDIS QSC's powers and functions, while Schedule 2 amendments relate to the operations of the NDIA and administration of the NDIS.
Schedule 1 – NDIS QSC powers and functions
1.20The Independent Review found that the NDIS was 'fragmented and that quality and safeguarding is not coordinated or consistent', with the Royal Commission similarly calling for a more active approach in monitoring the delivery of NDIS supports and a stronger approach to compliance and enforcement.
1.21As discussed further below, Schedule 1 puts forward amendments to the NDIS Act in relation to:
new civil penalty provisions (Part 1);
new criminal offences and increased penalties for existing civil penalty provisions (Part 2);
regulatory powers (Part 3);
anti-promotion orders (Part 4);
banning orders (Part 5);
information gathering (Part 6); and
evidentiary certificates (Part 7).
Penalty framework
1.22The introduction of greater civil and criminal penalties, as proposed by Schedule 1 of the bill, aims to provide for a 'more proportionate, reasonable and effective response' to aggravated breaches of the NDIS Act, to ensure NDIS participants are better protected from serious harm, and to make sure the penalty framework remains fit for purpose in an evolved NDIS market.
1.23The joint submission from the DHDA, NDIA and NDIS QSC explains that a stronger penalty framework will ensure there is 'credible deterrence against contraventions of the NDIS Act':
Tiered penalties will allow for more targeted and proportionate action against unlawful behaviour and considers the impact on participants, ensuring penalties are not viewed as a cost of doing business. A stronger penalty framework will strengthen the NDIS Commission’s ability to respond to, and prevent, contraventions of the NDIS Act.
1.24Proposed section 57(1A) at Item 3 of the bill would create a civil penalty (of 60penalty units), in addition to the existing offence provision, for the refusal or failure to comply with a requirement to give information or documents to the NDIS QSC. This allows for 'proportionate compliance action in circumstances where criminal prosecution may not be appropriate'.
1.25Item 6, Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the bill would insert a new division into the NDIS Act, regarding the provision of false or misleading information or documents to the NDIS QSC, creating a new civil penalty provision (at proposed section 59A, and in addition to the existing offence provision), where a person provides the NDIS QSC with information or documentation they know to be false or misleading. The amendment would provide the Commissioner with a greater range of action for non-compliance by adding the option to take civil, as well as criminal, action.
1.26Proposed subsection 67B(2) at Item 15 would introduce a new civil penalty (in addition to the existing criminal penalty), where a person makes a record of information; discloses information to any other person; or otherwise makes use of the information, and is not authorised to do so and it is protected NDIS QSC information. Similarly, Item 21 would add new subsection 67C(2) and civil penalties for someone who solicits from a Commission officer or another person, the disclosure of protected NDIS QSC information.
Criminal offences and increased penalties
1.27Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the bill provides for new criminal offences and increased penalties for existing civil penalty provisions.
1.28Proposed section 11B would introduce a definition for 'serious contravention' of the NDIS Act, and the threshold required for a contravention to be a serious contravention. This would include, at proposed subsections 11B(2) and 11B(3), 'significant failure' and 'systematic patterns of conduct' by either providers or their personnel and would 'clarify the circumstances and factors that may elevate the seriousness of a contravention of the [NDIS] Act'. The higher penalty is 'only intended to be available for these types of aggravated contraventions to reflect the seriousness of the breach and allow the court to impose a higher penalty when needed'—for example, wilful, deliberate and repeated contravention of the Code of Conduct or Practice Standards, which puts participants at serious risk of harm or death.
1.29The bill would amend section 73B of the NDIS Act to clarify when a provider is in breach of the requirement to be registered and, in proposed subsection 73B(2), would introduce (or revise existing) fault-based offences, strict liability offences and civil penalties. This includes a new criminal penalty for fault-based offences of imprisonment for two years or 120 penalty units, or both; for serious contraventions by an NDIS provider, the maximum civil penalty available would be 10000 penalty units, and 250 penalty units in any other case.
1.30Proposed amendments to section 73D of the NDIS Act, at Items 34 and 35 of the bill, would provide a civil penalty for a person who provides false or misleading information or documents in an NDIS registration application (10000 penalty units for a serious contravention; 250 penalty units in any other case). Other proposed amendments, at Items 36 to 41 of the bill, would provide for similarly increased civil and criminal penalties in various circumstances, including:
failure of registered providers to comply with the conditions of registration (proposed revision to section 73J);
serious contraventions of the NDIS Code of Conduct (proposed subsection 73V(3));
serious contravention of the requirement not to cause, or threaten to cause, detriment to another person (proposed subsections 73ZC(1) and (2));
failure to comply with an order from an issuing officer in relation to the provision of information or assistance as part of an investigation (proposed subsection 73ZI(6)); and
serious contraventions of a compliance notice (proposed subsection 73ZM(3)).
1.31The bill proposes new section 73ZNA, regarding non-compliance with banning orders and, along with strict liability offences and civil penalties, 'creates a fault-based offence of failing to comply with a banning order, with a criminal penalty of imprisonment for 5 years or 300 penalty units, or both'.
Regulatory powers
1.32Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the bill concerns regulatory powers in relation to compliance and enforcement. This Part proposes to amend section 73ZE of the NDIS Act to clarify what provisions of that Act are subject to expanded monitoring powers under Part 2 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (Regulatory Powers Act), while amending section 73ZK to clarify which civil penalties in the NDIS Act are enforceable under Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers Act.
1.33Further amendments are proposed to section 73ZL, at Items 52 and 53 of the bill, to recognise proposed new civil penalty provisions, to clarify when infringement notices should not be applied to civil penalty provisions, and to set out the 'civil penalty provisions for a pecuniary penalty for a serious contravention and another pecuniary penalty for any other case'.
1.34Item 59 of the bill inserts proposed sections 199A and 199B to ensure proper application of the Criminal Code Act 1995 to contraventions of the NDIS Act. While proposed section 199B concerns contravening offence and civil penalty provisions, proposed section 199A:
… deals with physical elements of offences and provides that this section will apply if a provision of the Act provides that a person contravening another provision of this Act (the conduct rule provision) commits an offence, that, for the purposes of applying Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code to the offence, the physical elements of the offence are set out in the conduct rule provision.
1.35Items 60 to 71 of the bill propose consequential amendments to the NDIS Act, as required, following the bill's amendments. For example, Items 66 to 69 propose amendments to improve readability of the NDIS Act and make other similar editorial changes, but do not change the existing provisions about the NDIS Provider Register.
1.36Application amendments proposed at Item 72 of the bill clarify that the amendments made by Part 3 of the bill 'apply in relation to conduct occurring before, on or after the commencement of this item', while Items 73 and 74 confirm that the NDIS Provider Register, and any rules made under section 73ZS of the NDIS Act, would continue and be in force both before and after commencement of the bill's amendments.
Anti-promotion orders
1.37Anti-promotion orders are considered by Part 4 of Schedule 1. Proposed sections 73ZOA, 73ZOB and 73ZOC would establish new powers for the NDIS QSC regarding anti-promotion orders—restricting a person from engaging in promotion conduct in connection with the NDIS, where that conduct undermines the objects of the NDIS Act. The provisions would provide the Commissioner with the power to prohibit or restrict a person from 'engaging in regulated promotional conduct as specified in' an anti-promotion order.
1.38The purpose of these amendments is to address the:
… growing practice of providers who advertise or sell supports and services to participants that are not only inconsistent with the NDIS Code of Conduct and the purpose of the scheme, but also risks harming vulnerable participants, including by undermining their choice and control over services.
1.39Proposed section 73ZOA at Item 76 would provide for new rules to specify the type of promotional conduct in connection with the NDIS 'that is prohibited due to its undermining of the Scheme and/or negative impact on the NDIS market' (for example, misrepresentations about the use of NDIS funds, or providers making exaggerated claims about potential Specialist Disability Accommodation investment returns). An anti-promotion order would take effect on the date specified in an order, which must be at least seven days after the order is made (unless the Commissioner is satisfied it should take effect immediately in the interests of participants).
1.40Before making rules prescribing conduct as 'regulated promotional conduct', the Minister would need to be satisfied that the conduct undermines the objects of the NDIS Act (proposed subsection 73ZOA(3)). Further, it is intended that anti-promotion orders would be limited to NDIS supports or services, and would 'complement, not displace, existing requirements under Australian Consumer Law'.
1.41Proposed section 73ZOB concerns compliance with anti-promotion orders and would provide for a new civil penalty of 250 penalty units where a person engages in conduct that breaches an order (including any conditions of that order), while proposed section 73ZOC would outline the circumstances and processes for the variation or revocation of an anti-promotion order.
1.42Item 77 would amend subsection 99(1) of the NDIS Act to confirm that a decision to make an anti-promotion order, and a decision to vary, or refuse to vary or revoke, an anti-promotion order is a reviewable decision, with the Commissioner the decision-maker.
Banning orders
1.43The NDIS Act currently provides the Commissioner with the power to issue a banning order, prohibiting or restricting specified activities by NDIS providers (or a person who was an NDIS provider). The EM explains the current provisions around banning orders:
There is currently an ability in subsection 73ZN(2A) for the Commissioner to make a banning order against persons who are not NDIS providers, employed or otherwise engaged by NDIS providers, and are not members of the key personnel of NDIS providers. However, this provision only enables the person to be prohibited or restricted from 'being involved in the provision of specified supports or specified services to people with disability'.
1.44The joint submission by the DHDA, NDIA and NDIS QSC states that the bill's amendments therefore address a regulatory gap:
… ensuring that individuals' working across different roles in the NDIS, such as auditors and consultants, can also be banned from operating in the NDIS. This measure seeks to improve participant safety and prevent future harm.
1.45Part 5, Schedule 1, Item 80 of the bill would insert proposed subsections 73ZN(2A) and 73ZN(2B), to expand the Commissioner's power to make a banning order to include additional categories of persons who operate in the NDIS, and to provide for the circumstances when the Commissioner makes the order to prohibit or restrict specified activities by a person. Proposed subsection 73ZN(2C) lists the categories of persons to whom a banning order prohibition or restriction may be made. This amendment expands the categories of person against whom a banning order can be imposed and will 'enable the Commissioner to better address risks presented by persons seeking to operate in the market or currently operating in the market but not directly as a provider, or an employee of a provider'.
1.46The list of categories of persons to whom a banning order may apply, include:
(a)a person who has made an application for registration as a registered NDIS provider, that has not been finally determined;
(b)an approved quality auditor;
(c)a person who is employed or otherwise engaged by, or is a member of the key personnel of, a person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b);
(d)a person involved in providing any of the following kinds of services: services that enable or facilitate the provision of supports or services for people with disability; and services that involve assisting with, or advertising on, applications for registration as a registered NDIS provider.
Information gathering and sharing
1.47Part 6 of Schedule 1 of the bill puts forward amendments about information gathering powers.
1.48The NDIS Act, at sections 55 and 55A, sets out the requirements in relation to the power of the NDIS QSC Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Commissioner to obtain information from other persons to ensure the integrity of the NDIS. These requirements currently provide that a written notice to provide this information must allow at least a 14-day period for a response, beginning the day the notice is given.
1.49The bill proposes to shorten the 14-day timeframe when necessary. The joint submission by the DHDA, NDIA and NDIS QSC pointed out that:
This shortened timeframe would only be used if the NDIS Commissioner reasonably believes that to not do so would significantly increase the risk of serious harm to a participant. The request for the shorter period must also be reasonable in the circumstances. … This recognises that there are some situations where the NDIS Commissioner needs to obtain information in less than 14 days (current period) to enable a reasonable and proportionate response in the circumstances. This is intended to reduce the risk of harm to NDIS participants.
1.50Section 56 of the NDIS Act provides the written notice requirements for sections 55 and 55A. Item 88 in Part6 of Schedule 1 of the bill proposes new subsection 56(6) and 56(7), to provide that the Commissioner may specify a shorter period or earlier time than 14 days, if certain conditions are met—including where there is evidence available that not specifying a shorter period could significantly increase the risk of serious harm to a participant.
1.51The bill proposes to expand the registration conditions for NDIS providers, through amendments to section 73F of the NDIS Act which currently requires compliance with a request by the Commissioner to provide information within a specified timeframe of not less than 14 days. Items 89 and 90 of the bill would amend this section to allow for a shorter period to provide the Commissioner with documents or information, if considered reasonable in the circumstances and if the Commissioner reasonably believes that not doing so would significantly increase the risk of serious harm to the participant.
1.52The bill would also amend subsection 201A(1) of the NDIS Act, to allow the NDIS QSC to make NDIS Rules prescribing bodies to which protected Commission information may be disclosed, and for what purposes. This is intended to allow the Commissioner to 'more appropriately share protected Commission information with prescribed bodies' under the NDIS Act.
Evidentiary certificates
1.53Part 7 of Schedule 1 of the bill proposes to insert new section 199C to allow the Commissioner to issue an evidentiary certificate for use as prima facie evidence, and outline what matters the certificate could certify. This would 'alleviate the need for the Commissioner and their staff to prepare affidavits and attend court proceedings' to give evidence which is 'non-controversial and easily accessible, and generally not challenged in legal proceedings', thus increasing efficiency in the way that uncontroversial evidence is provided in legal matters.
1.54It is proposed that these amendments would also align the NDIS QSC with the legislative authority of other regulators.
Schedule 2 – NDIA functions
1.55Schedule 2 of the bill puts forward amendments to the NDIS Act regarding the functions and operations of the NDIA, and the engagement of participants with the Scheme. Schedule 1 amendments consider:
how participants withdraw from the NDIS (Part 1);
electronic claims forms (Part 2); and
plan variations (Part 3).
NDIS participation
1.56Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the bill proposes new section 29A of the NDIS Act, which would set out the processes for a participant withdrawing from the Scheme.
1.57Proposed section 29A introduces a 90-day cooling-off period (where there is currently none) for those NDIS participants who indicate they wish to withdraw from the Scheme, and will expand the options available to participants (and their nominees) to notify the NDIA of their intended withdrawal.
1.58Proposed subsection 29A(1) provides that a person can request to no longer be a participant in 'any manner approved by the CEO', including over the phone or in person—currently, the only method by which to make a withdrawal request to the NDIA is in writing. The CEO must then, in writing, directly notify the participant of receipt of the request, and also notify the participant's correspondence nominee.
1.59During the cooling-off period, participants will be able to cancel their request, a measure to help ensure the withdrawal request is 'genuine, and will [therefore] prevent physical, mental or financial harm to the participant, as a result of leaving the [S]cheme without due consideration and planning'.
1.60Proposed subsection 29A(4) would allow the CEO to extend the 90-day cooling-off period before it ends, with no limitations on the reasons for this extension, 'meaning it could be done on the CEO's own initiative or at the request of the participant'. An extension can be approved more than once.
Electronic claims
1.61Part 2 of Schedule 2 proposes to repeal and replace subsection 9A(2) of the NDIS Act, to allow the NDIA CEO to 'publish an approved form, or a representation of the form, on the Agency's website', which addresses the current practical difficulty under the Act requiring the publication of an approved form, 'for a claim that is to be submitted through an online system'. It is envisaged that this will be a 'small change that will generate significant efficiencies in how the scheme is run'.
1.62Further, the NDIS Act does not currently allow the NDIA CEO to prescribe the way an NDIS payment claim is made. Proposed amendments to section 45(3) of the NDIS Act, at Item 5 of Schedule 2 of the bill, would allow the NDIA CEO to control and limit the channels through which a payment claim can be made, including via online systems and other digital channels. The amendments would also extend the CEO's powers to request further information from claimants before being satisfied the claim should be paid (proposed subsections 45(3A) to 45(3E)).
1.63The joint submission by the DHDA, NDIA and NDIS QSC states that these changes will:
… improve the administration of claims and payments under the NDIS. This also allows for enhanced oversight over the payment of claims in certain circumstances, supporting the integrity and sustainability of the NDIS.
Plan variations
1.64Amendments at Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the bill intend to clarify the operation of the NDIS Act. Proposed paragraph 47A(1B)(aa) would clarify that for a participant's plan, 'a variation of a total funding amount … may increase or decrease that total funding amount'. The EM observes that '[w]hile most variations will increase the total funding amount in a participant's plan, there are some limited circumstances in which a total funding amount may be reduced'.
1.65The bill's amendments would not change current plan variation arrangements (including the circumstances in which plans can be varied, and the kind of variations which can be made) and does not change review rights. Rather, the amendments are intended to ensure that a:
… participant who receives … compensation or supports under a statutory scheme after a plan is approved, can have their plan adjusted without having to undergo another support needs assessment.
Financial impact statement
1.66According to the bill's EM, the bill 'will not introduce any financial impacts'. The EM explains that:
The NDIS Financial Sustainability Framework agreed by National Cabinet provides an annual growth target in the total costs of the Scheme of 8 per cent by 1 July 2026, with further moderation of growth as the Scheme matures. This Bill will contribute to the annual growth target by strengthening Scheme integrity.
Compatibility with human rights
1.67The bill's Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights (Statement) notes that the bill 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.
1.68According to the Statement, the bill engages the following human rights:
the right to equality and non-discrimination – Articles 3, 4 and 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and Articles 2, 16, 19 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR);
the rights of people with disability – Articles 4, 9, 16 and 21 of the CRPD;
the right to social security and employment – Articles 6, 7 and 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and Article 28 of the CRPD;
the right to health – Article 12 of the ICESCR;
the right to privacy – Article 22 of the CRPD; and
the right to criminal process rights – Article 14 and 15 of the ICCPR.
1.69The Statement concludes that the bill enhances the safety of 'people with a disability, their families and carers through stronger regulation of the services and supports they access', in line with the rights provided by the CRPD, ICCPR and ICESCR. The Statement argues that to the extent the bill may limit human rights, this is reasonable, necessary and proportionate 'to ensure the long-term integrity and sustainability of the NDIS' and to benefit all those with access to the NDIS.
1.70Regarding the bill's key proposed amendments and engagement with specific human rights, the Statement makes the following observations.
Right to equality and non-discrimination
1.71Allowing the NDIS QSC to issue an anti-promotion order will enable the Commission to abolish practices that constitute discrimination against people with disability, while ensuring that participants engaging with promotional activity have access to clear information and increased choice.
1.72The introduction of the 90-day cooling-off period will support participant decision-making autonomy, and allow the NDIA to confirm the request is genuine and in the participant's best interest, and will not pose a risk of physical, mental or financial harm.
1.73The Statement concludes that the amendments put forward by Schedule 2 of the bill introduce fairness in administrative processes, 'promoting equal opportunity to exercise rights before the law and equal protection without discrimination'.
Rights of people with disability
1.74By expanding accessible communication options for participants wishing to withdraw from the NDIS, and providing for an electronic system for provider claims, the bill ensures 'participants and providers can access information and systems in formats and technologies more appropriate to them'.
1.75Additionally, the increased penalty framework and expansion of banning order provisions seek to ensure that people with disability who engage with the NDIS 'are protected from exploitation', while deterring and preventing instances of exploitation or any forms of violence and discrimination, and providing for prosecution where necessary.
Right to social security and employment
1.76The Statement acknowledges that the extension of the NDIS QSC's banning order powers may impinge on the right for individuals to continue working in the NDIS sector, but the order is only imposed following the NDIS QSC's determination that the person is unable to provide quality and safe supports for NDIS participants. It is therefore considered a proportionate and appropriate measure which safeguards NDIS participants (and does not preclude an individual working outside of the NDIS sector).
Right to privacy
1.77The bill proposes to delegate to the Commissioner the existing power to make and amend NDIS rules prescribing the persons or bodies to which protected NDIS QSC information may be disclosed, and the purposes of such disclosure, to ensure the NDIS QSC can compel information in a timely manner (a recommendation of both the Royal Commission and the Independent Review). The Statement explains that this amendment would ensure that the NDIS QSC can better 'engage in their role as a proactive regulator':
Currently the Commission does not have the ability to request information in a timely manner, when there is a risk of serious harm to a participant. This prevents the Commission from acting in a proactive manner to address concerns of breached compliance, preventing the Commission from regulating and enforcing action. This measure will facilitate the fast recovery of information in certain circumstances, which is necessary in instances where harm may have occurred.
Right to criminal process rights
1.78The bill proposes new and increased penalties, through amendments which clarify the circumstances 'which may elevate the seriousness of a contravention with the NDIS Act', and 'align the penalty framework with the policy objective of determining serious and repeat instances of non-compliance'.
1.79The Statement clarifies that the higher penalties proposed by the bill are only intended to be available for aggravated conventions and to reflect the seriousness of the breach—allowing the courts to impose higher penalties when needed, and to 'ensure the penalty amount is proportionate and appropriately adapted to the contravention'. The penalty regime proposed by the bill reflects recommendations of the Royal Commission that the NDIS QSC take stronger compliance action in response to 'serious or repeat non-compliance, demonstrated disregard for the safety of people with disability, or where non-compliance has caused serious harm to an NDIS participant'.
Consideration by other committees
1.80Both the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills have made comments on the bill, as summarised below.
Joint Committee on Human Rights
1.81The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (Human Rights Committee) considered the bill in its first report of 2026, tabled on 4 February 2026.
1.82The Human Rights Committee observed that the bill's provisions which ensure NDIS participants and providers can access information and systems in ways appropriate to them promotes the rights of people with disability. However, the Human Rights Committee drew attention to the bill's proposal to expand the application of banning orders.
1.83The Human Rights Committee took the view that expanding the categories of persons against whom a banning order could be imposed may engage and limit the rights to work and privacy, and explained that while:
… banning orders likely pursue a legitimate objective, there may be questions regarding their proportionality, particularly if banning orders are made in circumstances where individuals do not pose a direct risk to the safety of people with disability.
1.84It drew these concerns to the attention of the Minister and the Parliament.
Senate Scrutiny for Bills Committee
1.85On 4 February 2026, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills (Scrutiny Committee) made comment on the bill, in the following areas.
Significant penalties
1.86The Scrutiny Committee made comments on the various higher maximum penalties proposed by the bill and drew to the attention of senators, and the Senate as a whole, the appropriateness of providing maximum civil penalties of 10000 units as proposed by various items of the bill.
Strict liability offences
1.87In relation to the introduction of strict liability offences in certain circumstances, the Scrutiny Committee acknowledged the public interest in deterring non-compliance, given the risks of non-compliance to people with disability. However, the Scrutiny Committee considered that the EM does not contain sufficient explanation as to why the imposition of strict liability is necessary.
1.88The Scrutiny Committee requested an addendum to the EM be tabled in Parliament containing an explanation as to why it was necessary and appropriate to impose strict liability on the offence of contravening a banning order.
1.89On 17 February 2026, the Minister confirmed that an addendum to the EM would be tabled including the information requested, before the Bill resumes debate in the Senate. This was welcomed by the Scrutiny Committee.
Evidentiary certificates and significant matters in delegated legislation
1.90The Scrutiny Committee noted its expectation for detailed justification for any proposed powers to issue or use evidentiary certificates, to be included in explanatory materials. The Scrutiny Committee noted that it 'has not previously accepted that administrative flexibility alone provides sufficient justification for the limitation it places on a defendant’s common law right to be presumed innocent'.
1.91It also noted that the bill would provide the NDIS QSC Commissioner with the delegated authority to make rules listing other matters that may be specified in an evidentiary certificate. The Scrutiny Committee's view is that significant matters should be included in primary legislation, unless a sound justification for the use of delegated legislation is provided.
1.92The Scrutiny Committee requested the Minister's advice as to why it was necessary and appropriate to provide for the issuing of evidentiary certificates by the NDIS QSC Commissioner in certain proceedings.
1.93On 17 February 2026, the Minister responded, noting that the proposed approach to evidentiary certificates was developed in consultation with the Attorney-General's Department, and was considered a proportionate response to administrative burdens while maintaining important safeguards for the accused or defendant. The response also noted that the certificates would be prima facie evidence only.
1.94In its report tabled on 25 February 2025, the Scrutiny Committee considered the Minister’s response. It reiterated its view that the nature of evidentiary certificates as prima facie evidence does not constitute a legal safeguard and continued to have concerns that the bill does not appear to contain adequate safeguards around the rule-making power. The Scrutiny Committee drew these concerns to the Senate's attention.
Conduct of the inquiry
1.95Details of the inquiry were made available on the committee's website. The committee also contacted a number of organisations to invite them to lodge written submissions, by 6 February 2026.
1.96The committee received 51 published submissions, which are listed at Appendix 1 of this report.
1.97The committee held one public hearing in Canberra and via videoconference on 24 February 2026. A list of witnesses who gave evidence at the public hearing is available at Appendix 2.
Note on referencing
1.98References to committee Hansard in this report are to the proof transcripts. Page numbers may vary between the proof and official transcripts.
Acknowledgements
1.99The committee thanks the organisations and individuals who contributed to the inquiry by making written submissions and appearing as witnesses at the public hearing.
Notes on terminology
1.100The committee recognises that people use many terms when talking about disability. The committee is aware that there are people in the community who prefer 'people first language', people who prefer 'identity first language', and people who use terms interchangeably.
1.101The committee recognises that each member of the community will have their own opinion on terminology. The committee also understands that each person will have a preferred way of communicating and self-describing. The committee respects that language is an individual and highly personal choice. In the context of this inquiry, the committee has used people first language in its report.