:format(webp))
In Part 2 of the series on the NDIS Commission’s consultations on mandatory registration, Therese explores the report on platform providers.
After bringing you the findings of the consultation process into the mandatory registration for Support Coordination (SC) and Supported Independent Living (SIL) providers, here is “Part Two” on Platform Providers.
To briefly recap, change is afoot for the provider registration system. In 2023, the NDIS Review recommended mandatory registration or enrolment for all providers. In response, government formed a Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce, which handed down its report last year. The government has since announced that SIL providers, SC and Platform Providers would be the first up for mandatory registration. The NDIS Commission released a consultation paper to seek advice on the mandatory registration of these providers, including one paper on SIL and SC providers, and one on Platform Providers.
The result of the consultations, which included “town hall” style meetings, industry forums, submissions and surveys, was recently released by the NDIS Commission in a “What we heard” report. So, what did they hear?
Defining a Platform Provider
One of the key questions of the consultation was how best to define a “Platform Provider.” This matters, because …
The consultation paper also considered four possible models to define a platform provider:
- Model 1 – Based on the NDIS Commission Own Motion Inquiry into Platform Providers
- Model 2 – Based on the Aged Care Act (adapted for the NDIS)
- Model 3 – Based on the Fair Work Act (adapted for the NDIS)
- Model 4 – A “Designation Model” where the NDIS Commission had the power to name providers directly
These models are explained in more detail here.
Shared features
Most people consulted agreed that Platform Providers should be defined based on their shared features including:
- What the platform does (its function)
- Platforms that deliver NDIS services
- Platforms that charge fees to users
- Platforms that use technology to deliver services.
While feedback agreed that the overall function for Platform Providers was connecting providers, there was also general support for ensuring that the definition only captures services that receive NDIS payments (for example, a website that provides a simple directory service without charging may not be included in the definition).
Building on the definitions of other regulators
Of the four definition models proposed, the strongest support was for:
- Model 1: Based on the NDIS Commission inquiry into Platform Providers
An NDIS provider that uses a profile-based platform (for example an app or website where NDIS Participants and workers create a “profile”) to connect NDIS participants with workers to deliver NDIS supports. - Model 2: Based on the Aged Care Act
An aged care digital platform means an online enabled application, website or system operated to facilitate the delivery of services in the Commonwealth aged care system.
Feedback from stakeholders said that the model should be simple and capture a wide range of providers, and, where possible, align with the Aged Care model. While there was discussion about giving the NDIS Commission the power to formally name (or ‘designate’) a provider as a Platform Provider (similar to powers available in Aged Care), feedback cautioned that this power should be used carefully and not unfairly.
Which registration obligations are important?
Having worked through who might be defined as a Platform Provider, the consultations turned to which registration obligations are important.
Safeguarding and protections
Common feedback from participants included the need for measures to reduce fraud and abuse. Workers themselves suggested more mandatory training. This was echoed in other submissions which highlighted the need for training requirements and, worker screening.
Feedback from Platform Providers indicated they were generally supportive of common baseline requirements for safeguarding, such as worker screening, incident reporting and complaint management.
Overall, while improving safety was seen as important, respondents also said that these increased requirements should lead to improvements in service quality, including. “Participants suggested having clearer service agreements, training for workers, and more responsibility for platforms to ensure their matching process was effective as ways to improve quality.”
Service quality
While some respondents considered minimum qualification requirements as a potential mechanism to improve service quality, there was also concern about how effectively new obligations could practically improve the quality of services. Particularly for platforms with less oversight. Some submissions also noted that this may need to be supported with pricing changes.
Information to support people making choices
Feedback from both participants and workers was that reforms should make it easier to compare services and increase transparency around fees and service quality. There was also feedback that more information should be provided about the difference between the roles and responsibilities of the workers and the platforms themselves.
What’s next?
While the consultations provided significant insight for the NDIS Commission, there is still further work to be done on the definition of Platform Provider. Risks that need to be considered include how a definition might impact fair work obligations, concerns workers will exit platforms to avoid obligations, and accidently including platforms such as social media or online marketplaces if the definition is too broad.
Another key issue for consideration is whether to include mainstream platforms such as those that connect users to a wide range of services (accommodation, transport and meal delivery) not just NDIS supports. Some of them do receive NDIS payments from participants but are already monitored by other regulatory systems.
Regardless of the final definition, many stakeholders cautioned about the risk of treating all platform providers the same. Given the different models currently in place, oversight of workers and users is quite varied. For some, implementing the current registration requirements would be simple, while for others, this would require significant changes. A one size fits all approach may have unintended consequences, including discouraging users and thus reducing innovation and choice.
And finally, as with any significant change, there was caution from stakeholders that the implementation should be carefully managed to minimise disruption and uncertainty for participants, the workforce and Platform Providers. Feedback suggested that adequate time to prepare for the transition to mandatory registration and providing clear information about the changes would improve the transition process.
While there is more work to be done, the NDIS Commission is “considering this feedback in planning our next steps. We have already committed to provide accessible, clear and straightforward information about the reform process”.
