Deep dive into the Registration Taskforce Report: Your FAQs answered

DSC has received numerous enquiries about the NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce Report and the potential implications for providers. In response we have prepared answers to some of your more frequently asked questions. It is very important to note that the government has not yet formally responded to the report, nor committed to its implementation or timeframes. This summary focuses on what the Taskforce has proposed and why - so please don’t take it as gospel just yet.

First a quick recap:

As most of you will know, last year the NDIS Review recommended compulsory registration or enrolment for all providers, with a ‘graduated risk-proportionate model.’ In response, the NDIS Minister Bill Shorten established the NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce to advise the government on the design and implementation of this new registration system. The Taskforce handed down its report to the Minister in July of which we provided a brief summary of the advice.

Ok, let’s get into some FAQs!

If I deliver (insert: support coordination/ in-home support as a sole trader/ support that doesn’t include high intensity/ behaviour support that doesn’t contain restrictive practice/etc.) will I have to be registered?

The Taskforce supports mandatory registration for NDIS disability service providers as a key lever to strengthening regulation for the sector. In a nutshell, if you are an organisation or sole trader established for the purposes of delivering disability services, you will likely be impacted by these changes and require registration of some kind. However, the type of service you are delivering will impact the level of registration you will need (more on that later).

How does this differ from now?

Currently, only providers who deliver Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA), Plan Management, Specialist Behaviour Support or services that involve the use of regulated restrictive practices are required to be registered. The Taskforce thinks this scope should be significantly broadened to capture the disability service provider market.

However, the Taskforce does not believe that all providers, as currently defined, should be registered. At the moment, an NDIS provider is any service or supplier that receives NDIS funding which is not a participant (including mainstream products and services). Further work needs to be done to define the scope of providers that will fall under the registration model.

What’s wrong with the current state of affairs? Isn’t everyone already regulated by the NDIS Commission?

Technically all NDIS providers are already regulated by the NDIS Commission. However, without registration, they are not necessarily visible to the Commission or the NDIA because they don’t know who they are. This reduces the regulatory intelligence available to improve performance and drive market intervention. The Taskforce wants to see an uplift in the quality of services required to enter and stay in the market. In its view, mandatory registration is essential to achieving this.

In its report, the Taskforce observed the growing divide between unregistered and registered providers. In public discourse, unregistered providers can be painted as unseen and dangerous, while registered providers are depicted as ‘wolves in sheep's clothing’. The Taskforce observed this divide to be toxic and, in many instances, the debate is weaponised against people with disability and service providers alike.

If disability services need to be registered, what will be defined as a ‘disability service’?

As mentioned before, currently NDIS Providers are anyone that receives NDIS funding which are not a participant. The Taskforce thinks this definition should be narrowed. While the definition still needs to be codesigned, the Taskforce says the following services offered to people with disability should be included in the registration model.

Housing or home and living support.
Supports to live independently, including shared supports with other people with disability.
Day programs in centre-based environments.
Employment supports to find work or obtain job skills and readiness.
Australian Disability Enterprises (ADEs).
Short-term accommodation or respite services.
In-home care and support services including hygiene, mobility, social and economic participation supports.
Support to access the community or engage in social participation.
Intermediary services to help people manage their NDIS Plan, support services or financial management.
Equipment and assistive technology, including modifications.
Disability-specific transportation services.
Allied health and therapeutic services.
Early childhood and early intervention services.
Positive behaviour support (practitioner and implementation).
Interpreter services.
Health services, such as paediatric support or optometry.
Capacity building support.
Peer support programs and initiatives.
Orientation and mobility services.

What did the Taskforce say about group homes?

The Taskforce is concerned that services delivered in closed and congregate settings like group homes have the potential to restrict people's rights due to increased risk of isolation. The Taskforce heard that people in group homes often have reduced access to natural safeguards, community participation and capacity building which places them in the highest risk category. The NDIS Commission’s 2022 Own Motion Inquiry into Aspects of Supported Accommodation found 85% of all reportable incidents occurred in group home settings.

Currently NDIS funded group homes can operate unregistered, subject to little regulation without visibility from the NDIS Commission. This also means unregistered providers do not need to submit the aforementioned reportable incidents. The Taskforce heard concerning stories of unregistered providers targeting people with very large funding packages, despite having no prior experience in delivering high-risk support. Reports include NDIS participants being housed together then evicted and left homeless once their funding is exhausted. The lack of visibility in the unregistered market makes it difficult to understand the scale of the problem. However, what is clear is while there continues to be no baseline quality requirements to operate a group home, the risk of exploitation and opportunity to ‘drain’ plans remains significant.

Given the gravity of these concerns, the Taskforce recommends that all Supported Independent Living (SIL) and home and living supports be required to be registered as a matter of urgency (within 12 months). They say this can be done under the existing framework and should not wait for the new model to be developed.

In addition to increased registration requirements, group homes would be subject to unannounced visits and the NDIS Commission would have a statutory right to enter the premises. The Taskforce says increasing the external supervision of these providers is important to try and counteract some of the isolation that can be built into the service model.

The Taskforce has also recommended group homes be registered under the Advanced Registration category and undergo in-depth observational audits by the NDIS Commission (rather than an approved quality auditor as is currently the case for all registered providers). The Taskforce says there should be a core team of auditors within the NDIS Commission who audit the highest risk supports. More on this registration type below.

What is not classified as a disability service that would need to be registered?

Compulsory registration of disability service providers is not the same as requiring all NDIS funded purchases to be made through registered providers. The Taskforce still wants people to be able to buy disability related goods off-the-shelf from mainstream retailers. They also still want participants who self-direct their supports to be able to choose their own workers as they see fit. Here is a bit more of their thinking behind this.

Retail outlets

While the NDIS Review recommended an enrolment category for the lowest risk supports to create visibility, the Taskforce recommends that proof of purchase should offer enough visibility of these services.

Participants currently purchase consumables and low-cost assistive technology from a range of suppliers outside of specialist disability services such as Woolworths, JB Hi-Fi, and Bunnings. Concerns were raised that the obligations imposed on non-disability specific retailers would at best add no value and at worst, dramatically impact business (for example if worker screening was required for a major retail outlet). This could motivate businesses to cease providing goods and services to NDIS participants.

Importantly, the Taskforce did not find significant evidence of increased abuse, neglect, exploitation or price gouging in these places to warrant regulatory intervention. Participants on the whole actually found mainstream services more cost effective than registered providers and report benefiting from greater flexibility in delivery options.

The Taskforce also raised concerns that enrolment could be misinterpreted as a mechanism for monitoring participant spending decisions rather than safeguarding. The Taskforce acknowledges that legislative Rules apply to what participants can and cannot spend their funds on and that the NDIA is best placed to respond to any concerns through the planning process.

Workers engaged by self-directed participants

Workers themselves would not need to be registered if they were engaged by participants who are registered under the Self-Directed Support registration category. Instead, the participant (or their nominee) who is self-directing their support would be registered with the NDIS Commission. More on this registration type below.

What are the proposed registration levels and where do I sit?

The Taskforce has put forward a tiered model of registration according to risk. We do not have a complete list of where all service types fit, but you can apply the principles to get a general idea.

Advanced Registration

This registration class applies to providers who offer the highest risk supports. This includes behaviour support services and support delivered in congregate or closed settings such as group homes and supported employment. The Taskforce acknowledges that the Disability Royal Commission found services delivered in closed settings placed unacceptable limitations on the lives of people with disability, and while there was disagreement about timeframes, all Commissioners agreed they should be phased out. The Taskforce has recommended that those under Advanced Registration undergo an in-depth observation audit by the NDIS Commission rather than an approved quality auditor as is currently the case.

Summary of registration requirements

Code of conduct.
Worker screening (risk assessed roles).
Complaints process.
Reportable incidents.
Practice standards.
Performance measurements.
Application, identity verification and Code of Conduct and worker screening attestation.
Audits - Conducted by the NDIS Commission, including in-depth observational audit of compliance with relevant practice standards.
Suitability assessment (key personnel).
Ongoing monitoring and compliance.

General Registration

General registration is designed for providers who offer medium risk supports such as personal care, high intensity daily personal activities, community access and therapy where there is a lot of one-on-one contact with people. These are supports provided in the community or people’s own homes, distinguishing them from Advanced Registration. The Taskforce anticipates this category will capture most of the current disability support services that are delivered in-home or in the community.

Summary of registration requirements

Code of conduct.
Worker screening (risk assessed roles).
Complaints process.
Reportable incidents
Practice standards.
Check-ins with NDIS Commission.
Performance measurements.
Application, identity verification and Code of Conduct and worker screening attestation.
Audits - Conducted by Approved Quality Auditors, with graduated and proportionate audit of compliance with relevant practice standards, including observational auditing.
Suitability assessment (key personnel).
Ongoing monitoring and compliance.

Self-Directed Support Registration

This registration category will apply to participants (or their guardian or legal representative) who engage their supports directly. This includes through direct employment, Services for One and independent contractors.

The Taskforce heard that self-directed supports have a different risk profile to other service arrangements. Natural safeguards and control over when to stop and start services are effective in keeping people safe. Participants using these arrangements often have specific, sophisticated and tailored approaches to safeguarding that address their individual risks and needs. The real risk to these participants is when they are unsupported in these arrangements. The Taskforce wants to ensure registration adds value and drives quality and safety in these arrangements rather than increasing compliance burden.

Participants registered for self-directed supports will be able to use unregistered providers because visibility will come from the participant’s registration. When a participant or their nominee registers for self-directed support, they will automatically receive a registration reference number, concluding the registration process. The NDIS Commission will review registrations and can contact the participant or nominee to follow up as needed (with regular check-ins ongoing).

The Taskforce recommends the Government invest in the systemic benefits of self-directed supports by offering programs and opportunities for capacity building and peer support. The Taskforce has heard that people self-directing supports learn a lot from their peers who are doing it, and there are opportunities to build capacity to sophisticate their arrangements.

Who might not be able to register for this category?

Participants could register to self-direct their supports, unless they fall within the Advanced Registration category (for example they require behaviour support, restrictive practices or live in a group home). Under the proposed model, these supports would be subject to Advanced Registration regardless of self-direction. This is to avoid a loophole of a provider exploiting participants by using their self-direction status to avoid the provider’s own registration. The Taskforce has heard that very few participants that would fall within the Advanced Registration category currently self-direct their supports. But they recognise the need for further consultation to ensure the proposal works for people.

Summary of registration requirements

Code of conduct.
Worker screening – contextual, consultation required
Complaints process - contextual, consultation required
Reportable incidents - consultation required.
Check-ins with NDIS Commission.
Application, identity verification and Code of Conduct and worker screening attestation.
Own assessment for practice and quality according to self-defined standards.
Suitability assessment undertaken by the participant.
Ongoing monitoring and compliance.

Basic Registration

Basic registration offers a light touch registration for lower risk supports, such as social and community participation and services involving more limited 1:1 contact with people with disability. The Taskforce heard there is a need for providers to be able to register in a light touch category when delivering lower risk supports so that they are visible to the NDIS Commission, without needing to undergo the same in-depth registration process as the higher risk categories.

The Taskforce also heard that mainstream services that don’t require entry into the home, such as gardening, should not require registration. Though it is still unclear where the full spectrum of non-retail mainstream services will fit on the proposed registration continuum.

Summary of registration requirements

Code of conduct.
Complaints process.
Reportable incidents.
Practice standards (simplified standards).
Performance measurements.
Application, identity verification and Code of Conduct and worker screening attestation.
Self-assessment and attestation of compliance in lieu of audit.
Suitability assessment (key personnel).
Ongoing monitoring and compliance.

Are they proposing changes to the registration process?

Yes. The Taskforce has identified a number of ways they think the registration process could be strengthened and has proposed the following.

Application

The provider or self -directed participant (or their nominee) would complete an online application form. This could be integrated with a centralised online platform and NDIS payments system (once developed).

Identification verification

All registered providers and self-directed participants would have their identification verified. While the current suitability process involves providing information about business structure and key personnel, currently, this information is not actually verified. This leaves a gap that can be exploited by fake providers. To close this gap existing reliable systems such as MyGov and Single Touch Payroll may be used to verify identification where appropriate.

Code of Conduct attestation

The Taskforce has recommended all providers and workers provide a Code of Conduct attestation through an online form via the NDIS Commission. Providers and workers would need to confirm they have read, understood and commit to adhering to the Code of Conduct and be required to answer some short form, multiple choice questions to demonstrate their comprehension of the Code.

Worker screening attestation

All providers or workers that have undergone worker screening would provide the NDIS Commission with confirmation of the screening, including names, expiry and role in the organisation. Real time data on the employment status of the worker or changes in their screening status should be available to the NDIS Commission through the national database.

Audits by the NDIS Commission and approved quality auditors

The Taskforce recommends that all Advanced and General Registered providers be subject to audits. However, the current audit process is not fit for purpose and needs to be dramatically redesigned.

Currently, audits focus on business processes rather than participant welfare and outcomes. They do not necessarily keep people safe nor enforce the conditions of registration. Providers often have to wait up to 18 months or more for a response from the NDIS Commission, yet the Taskforce says timely action is what will keep participants safe. They have heard that audits are extremely costly (which is only amplified in rural and remote areas) and can be undertaken by inexperienced or poorly skilled auditors with little value delivered to the provider or participants.

The Taskforce says the purpose of the audit should evaluate the provider’s fulfillment of their obligations under their registration and failure to meet an audit could see the registration restricted or revoked. As such, the Taskforce recommends audit redesign consider the following elements:

Auditing should be risk-proportionate to service type and size. Past experience of the provider to fulfill audited obligations should be recognised, leading to ‘earned autonomy’.
There should be an in-depth observational audit of compliance with relevant practice standards for those registered in the Advanced Registration category. A graduated and proportionate audit of compliance with relevant practice standards, including observational audits, should be applied to those in the General Registration category.
Verification audits should be more than a desktop review and should involve at least one face-to-face exercise.
There should be a core team of auditors within the NDIS Commission who audit the highest risk supports (Advanced). General and Basic Registration categories could continue to access approved quality auditors, external to the Commission. However, they should undergo specific training and professional development to review NDIS providers. Similar to the early childhood space, auditors may currently work in the sector.
Audit powers should be enshrined in the Act, where appropriate, including the requirement for a provider to participate in the audit by providing documentation or being interviewed as needed.
Reduce duplication - there should be further consideration of how auditing can interface with other quality processes (such as ISO 9001) to avoid duplication, without missing important aspects of the NDIS audit process.
The process must be cost effective. Current audits are reported to cost upwards of $10,000, which does not seem to be proportionate or conducive to a positive audit culture. Consideration should be given to:
- Costs proportionate to the organisation’s income or determined by category of registration.
- Travel of auditors, wherever possible, audits should be conducted locally. For those in rural and remote areas where auditors are not able to be sourced locally, the NDIS Commission should subsidise these travel costs.
Auditors should be appointed by the NDIS Commission and not chosen by the provider.
The focus of audits needs to be on incentivisation and continuous improvement, quality assurance and ongoing and meaningful education. The current focus of audits are paper-based and seem to be more concerned with what happens at head office in the procedure files than on the frontline. The Taskforce wants to see a change in focus.
Audits should be focused on service delivery. The Disability Royal Commission identified that auditors do not routinely have access to complaints and incident reporting which impacts their audit samples. This issue was expressly heard by the Taskforce but reinforces the importance for auditors to have access to appropriate information that orientates their audits to what matters.
The Taskforce has heard mixed views about the participation of participants in audits. When co-designing a new auditing process, consideration should be given to how participants can best contribute to quality review including addressing the imposition placed on participants when asked to be part of the audit process. The Taskforce acknowledges the benefit of having participants involved and that people should be supported to participate if they wish. However, participants should not be considered responsible for the quality (or lack thereof) of service providers.
Auditors to provide a timely report within a specified timeframe. The Taskforce has heard that audits have taken up to a year and says audits must be timely to be effective. For those that fall within the Self-Directed Supports registration category, the participant should undertake their own assessment for practice and quality according to self-defined standards.

Suitability assessment of provider and key personnel

Providers registered in the Advanced, General and Basic registration categories would be subject to a suitability assessment of the provider and key personnel. Consistent with the NDIS Review, the Taskforce suggests this process considers any findings in relation to fraud, civil or criminal proceedings, and any other matters the NDIS Commissioner deems relevant. This process should be streamlined and sped up to reduce overall processing times for registration. Consistent with the NDIS Review’s advice, consideration should be given to granting conditional registration to some providers while the suitability assessment is being undertaken to remove delays for lower-risk services (such as those in the Basic Registration category). Those who register Self-Directed Supports will undertake their own suitability assessment.

If I am a sole trader delivering high risk supports, will I fall under the Advanced or the Basic Registration category?

The Taskforce’s risk proportionate model focuses on the type of service delivered rather than the business structure. This is a bit confusing as the term sole trader is used as an example in some of the descriptions of lower risk supports. However, if you are a sole trader delivering behaviour support services, or services in a closed setting that meets the definition of Advanced Registration you would come under that higher risk registration category. The same principles apply to delivering 1:1 in-home support under the General Registration category. Refer to Annexure A for further clarification.

What next?

That brings us to the end of the most FAQ on the Taskforce’s report. We remind you that these are just recommendations at this stage, and we will continue to report on the changes to registration as they evolve.

If you are interested in understanding what is involved with NDIS Registration under the current framework we have a new workshop for rego-curious providers looking to get on the front foot. Or if you just want to wait and see, be sure to stay tuned for updates. With so much reform on the table it is difficult to predict what will come first and when.

And of course, feel free to go straight to the source below. This piece has focused on our FAQs but there are still plenty of pearls we are yet to cover.

Summary of the Taskforce recommendations

Understand what this means for providers

Understand what this means for workers

Understand what this means for NDIS participants who self-direct their supports

Full version of the advice

Final consultation report

Accessible formats of the advice can also be found below:

Easy read version of the ndis provider and worker registration taskforce advice

AUSLAN version of the version of the ndis provider and worker registration taskforce advice