New Management of Funding Rule

The government has amended new Management of Funding Rules, to specify when a person can self- or plan- manage their NDIS funding.

The NDIA generally has to allow a person to choose how to manage their plan unless one of the conditions specified in the Act is met. The Rules are a legislative instrument that provides more information about how the NDIA should operationalise the Act.

This Rule has been developed in two stages. The first half was published in December last year, and covers how the NDIA should decide whether a person is likely to spend their funding in accordance with their plan and on NDIS supports. The second half was published March 4, 2025, and it addresses how the NDIA determines whether self-management poses an unreasonable risk and if a person should be allowed to plan-manage.

A quick note for those of you who read a previous version of this article. Just like DSS has edited the Rules, so too have we edited this article. The stuff around unreasonable risk and plan management, which was previously only proposed changes, has now been legislated.

The NDIS Act- When participants can’t self- or plan-manage

First up, we need to look at the new NDIS Act. Most of the time, the NDIA has to honour a participant’s decision on how they want to manage their NDIS funding. However, the new legislation has expanded circumstances when the NDIA can not allow a person to self-manage or use a plan manager. A participant or plan nominee can’t self-manage if:

The person managing the funding is insolvent or under administration
The person managing the funding has been convicted of an offence that carries a more than 2-year jail term or involves fraud or dishonesty.
The NDIA believes self-management would pose an unreasonable risk to the participant. Unreasonable risk is not defined in the Act, but is explored in the Rules.
Allowing a person to self-manage would break the NDIS Rules- there is no more information on what this might look like.
The NDIA believes that the person managing the funding would be unlikely to comply with Section 46 of the Act. Section 46 says that participants must spend their funding on NDIS Supports and in accordance with their plans. The new NDIS Rules outline what the NDIA would need to consider when reaching this conclusion (see below).

As you can see, some of these criteria are quite subjective. One person’s unreasonable risk is another’s dignity of risk. So the Rules are meant to provide more guidance to inform the Agency’s decision making.

Similarly, the NDIA can’t allow a person to use a Plan Manager, if the NDIA believes:

It would pose an unreasonable risk to the participant
Section 46 would be unlikely to be complied with.

Deciding if someone is likely to spend NDIS funding in accordance with their plan and on NDIS Supports

The Rules says that when deciding if someone is likely to comply with Section 46 (spending on NDIS Supports and in accordance with their plan), the NDIA must consider:

The person’s history of complying with Section 46. Ie. Have they previously spent their funding on any non-NDIS supports? Or not followed the conditions outlined in their plan?
Whether the person has complied with past requests for information from the NDIA. And if they didn’t provide the information, whether they made a reasonable effort or had a good reason.
If the person has a history of fraud or mismanaging funds.
The person’s capacity to manage their finances, taking into account any supports they might have.
If the person has been subjected to exploitation or undue influence when managing legal or financial matters.
Any matters raised by the plan nominee or participant that the NDIA considers relevant.
Anything else the NDIA considers relevant (you can’t say they’re not keeping their options open!).

Unreasonable risk to the participant

The amended Rules outline things the NDIA must consider when deciding whether self-management would pose an unreasonable risk to the participant. These considerations apply to either participants or plan nominees.

Whether the risks could be managed through supports in the participant's plan, or the participant’s informal, mainstream or community supports. For example, a participant who struggles with financial management might receive support from their parents when managing their NDIS funding, or the NDIS could fund financial literacy classes.
If risks have been managed in the past using supports, safeguards or strategies, or informal, community, or mainstream supports.
The types of support that are in the participant's plan. For example, the NDIA might decide it is an unreasonable risk for a person to manage their life-sustaining supports. However, the person might still be able to manage funding for their lower-risk supports.
The extent the participant is at risk of experiencing physical, mental or financial harm, exploitation, influence or pressure. Including if they have been at risk in the past.
The person’s ability to manage money, taking into account the support they have.
Whether a court has ordered another person to manage the participant’s money or property. For example, if the participant has a Guardian or Public Trustee, the NDIA will align plan management decisions with the court order.
Any matters raised by the participant or plan nominee that the NDIA considers relevant.
Anything else the NDIA considers relevant.

Considering whether a person can use a plan manager

The new Rules also includes things the NDIA must consider when deciding whether a person can use a plan manager.

Similar to the criteria above, the NDIA must consider:

Whether the risks to the participant could be managed through supports, safeguards and strategies, or any informal, mainstream or community supports. For example, a participant might not be able to access the internet to approve invoices. But if a family member could help them access the internet, this risk might be managed.
If the risks have been managed in the past.
The extent to which the participant is at risk of experiencing physical, mental or financial harm, or exploitation, influence or pressure.
Anything raised by the participant or plan nominee that the NDIA considers relevant.
Anything else the NDIA considers relevant.

What the NDIA can’t consider

For all of these decisions, the NDIA can’t take into account:

The nature of the participant’s impairments. But while the NDIA can’t consider the nature of a person’s impairment, they can consider the impact of the impairment. The distinction is subtle- the nature of a participant’s impairment could be a cognitive impairment, but the impact of the impairment might be a limited ability to use online banking.
The amount of funding in the plan.
If the plan has been underspent in the past.
Past bankruptcies that a person has been discharged from.

Reviewable decisions

All of these decisions relating to plan management are reviewable.

Learn more

You can find the new Management of Funding Rules, plain English summaries and Easy Read versions on the DSS website.

And to learn more about the NDIS Act, check out our articles: