Key messages
The Framework has not evolved to respond to changes in the NDIS, its participants and the market supporting them. As a result, the Framework is outdated and no longer meaningfully drives or guides quality and safeguarding arrangements.
The NDIS has continued to grow and change since the release of the Framework, and it is now operating in a different context. These changes include:
- The NDIS Commission has been established, and after a staged transition of states and territories, is now operating nationally.
- There has been an increased number of participants who are self-managed or plan-managed than originally envisioned (around 88% of participants as at 31 December 2022) (NDIA 2022). In response, there has been significant and unexpected growth in the unregistered provider market, with over 130,000 active unregistered providers (NDIA 2022). The Framework envisioned there would be a high proportion of agency-managed participants, and that providers of higher risk supports would generally be registered.
- New services have entered the market, including intermediary services that connect participants with the market and the emergence of platform providers, which connect participants with workers.
- As the market has grown, unique experiences of participants have become apparent including the experiences of First Nations people, culturally and linguistically diverse people, and people of diverse genders and sexuality, all of which intersect and interact together, and may mean that some participants are at greater risk of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation.
We have heard and identified:
- The Framework does not appear to be directly used to guide the work of the NDIS Commission and other actors. This means there is a lack of long-term, whole‑of‑scheme approaches to NDIS quality and safeguarding arrangements.
- The Framework has not evolved or been updated to reflect changes in the NDIS and its market. As a result, parts of it are outdated and need to be reassessed.
- Current strategies have not adequately addressed the unique experience of diverse participants. Supports are often not culturally appropriate and the need to recognise this diversity as part of promoting quality and safeguards has not been adequately addressed in the Framework or measures implemented under it.