Advocacy for Inclusion (AFI) has made a submission to the Australian Government consultation on proposed amendments to the definition of “NDIS provider” under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013. Our submission supports the goal of improving safety, quality and integrity within the NDIS. However, we are concerned the proposed changes could unintentionally undermine participant autonomy and safe self-directed arrangements.
Our submission highlights several key risks in the proposed approach.
Many participants organise their own supports through self-directed arrangements, including directly employing workers, engaging independent workers, or establishing governance structures such as family-managed trusts. These arrangements are often carefully designed by participants and families to maintain control, safety and stability in their lives. AFI is concerned that if the definition of “provider” is expanded before a clear self-direction category is established, people who self-manage or self-direct supports may be unintentionally captured within regulatory systems designed for commercial service providers.
The proposed framework also appears to assume that certain support types automatically carry higher risk and therefore require advanced registration. In practice, risk is shaped not by funding labels or support categories, but rather by where decision-making power sits. Two people may receive the same support funding — such as Supported Independent Living – yet have completely different risk profiles depending on whether supports are participant-governed or delivered by service providers. Regulation needs to take these arrangements into account and should not be based on support categories alone.
There is also a risk that the proposed definition could inadvertently capture peer supports, intermediary services and community-based capacity-building initiatives. These include peer support groups, advocacy organisations, HR advisory services and community mentoring programs that help participants navigate systems and exercise choice and control. These supports function as safeguards that strengthen participant capability and oversight.
Finally, we caution against relying on provider registration as a “silver bullet” to address fraud or cost pressures. Misconduct can occur among both registered and unregistered providers, and registration alone does not guarantee quality or safety. Stronger protections come from informed and empowered participants, supported by independent advocacy, transparent service information, accessible complaints mechanisms and rapid response when harm occurs.
You can read the full submission below.