:format(webp))
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 consultation papers 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 aim of the reform is to help regulate the NDIS market and support participants, workers and providers to understand their responsibilities. Without an agreed and fit-or-purpose definition, if the scope is too wide it may encompass mainstream providers that offer some support to NDIS participants (for example, meal delivery platforms). A scope too narrow may also mean some providers fall through the cracks.
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 –an NDIS provider that uses a profile-based platform to connect participants with workers to deliver NDIS supports.
- Model 2 – Based on the Aged Care Act (adapted for the NDIS) – an online enabled application, website or system operated to facilitate the delivery of services in the Commonwealth aged care system (whether funded aged care services or not).
- Model 3 – Based on the Fair Work Act (adapted for the NDIS) – an online-enabled application, website or system operated to arrange, allocate or facilitate the provision of labour services.
- Model 4 – A “Designation Model” where the NDIS Commission had the power to name providers directly – this involves a general definition, identifying providers likely to meet it and giving providers a set amount of notice ahead of formally designating them in the rules.
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 – this might include connecting participants and workers or a type of matching or brokerage service)
- 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 participants to workers, there was also general support for ensuring that the definition only captures services that receive NDIS payments (for example, a website that provides a 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 both Models 1 & 2:
- 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 considering which registration conditions Platform Providers should be required to meet.
Safeguarding and protection
Feedback from participants stressed the importance of 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.
Service quality
While some respondents felt that minimum qualification requirements for workers registered on Platform Providers could potentially improve service quality, other respondents were concerned about how new obligations could lead to practical improvements in the quality of services. 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.
What’s next?
While the consultations provided additional insight for the NDIS Commission, there is still further work to be done, particularly on the definition of “Platform Provider”. The Commission has committed to:
- use a definition based on shared features of platforms, including by their role of connecting participants with services and supports.
- make sure the definition only applies to platforms that get paid through NDIS funding
- try to make the definition simple and consistent with other sectors
- keep talking to other Government agencies to help shape the definition
- ask participants for their thoughts on whether mandatory registration should also include platforms that do not focus on connecting them with NDIS-specific services, like accommodation and transport platforms.
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 having a one-size-fits-all approach to registering Platform Providers. There is currently a huge variety in the types of Platform Providers. For some, implementing the current registration requirements would be straightforward, while for others, this would require significant changes.
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 emphasised the importance of the NDIS Commission providing adequate time to prepare for the transition to mandatory registration and providing clear information about the changes.
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”.
