Roles and responsibilities in the Framework

A broad range of governments and other actors have formal and informal roles in quality and safeguarding in the NDIS, which are articulated to varying degrees in the Framework.

Quality and safeguarding is a shared responsibility, requiring proactive efforts by providers, workers, regulators, the community, participants themselves and their supporters. As such, there are a wide range of roles, responsibilities and expectations in current quality and safeguarding arrangements.

We have identified a range of key roles and responsibilities in current quality and safeguarding arrangements:

• Individuals (NDIS participants) self-advocate about how supports are delivered and raise concerns about supports and services.
• Providers, intermediaries and workers deliver safe and quality supports to NDIS participants, both direct supports and intermediary services. This includes engaging with participants about how supports are delivered, and identifying and responding to concerns about quality and safeguards.
• Natural supports such as families, carers and community who support participants to engage with NDIS supports, advocate for change and for quality and safeguards for participants when required.
• Commonwealth Department of Social Services designs policy and legislative frameworks for the NDIS (including markets and quality and safeguarding policy), and funds advocacy services and other programs.
• NDIA assesses risk of participants during the access and planning stages, ensures the quality of plans and appropriate funding for supports and services to mitigate risk, and supports informed decision-making and capability development of participants. The NDIA also plays a role in regulating for, or otherwise upholding, quality and safeguards through the NDIA Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits (which apply to agency-managed and plan-managed participants) and sets requirements for the delivery of some supports.
• NDIS Commission regulates the provider and worker market to reduce risk to participants, drives quality in the delivery of supports and exercises market oversight; responds to and investigates complaints and incidents; regulates the use of restrictive practices; and promotes positive behaviour support strategies to reduce and eliminate restrictive practices. In order to deliver its regulatory functions, the NDIS Commission also has a role in directly supporting participants to uphold their rights to safe and quality supports.
• State and territory governments implement worker screening arrangements, authorise restrictive practices, manage guardianship arrangements, manage community visitors schemes (where available), ensure quality and safeguards in the delivery and regulation of mainstream services (such as hospitals and schools), and operate protective and corrective arrangements (such as emergency services, police, and family services). States and territories also have a role to play in the regulation of state or territory funded disability supports outside of the NDIS.

We have heard and identified:

• There are a lot of actors involved in NDIS quality and safeguards and it can be confusing, particularly for participants, to understand who is responsible for what and how to raise issues.
• The Framework is not clear on the roles of non-government actors such as NDIS participants, families, carers, advocates and community support networks.
• The Framework does not clearly address, or promote coordination in, interactions between NDIS regulation and state and territory regulation. Additionally, there continue to be differences in quality and safeguarding arrangements between states and territories.
  • There are varying arrangements in relation to restrictive practice authorisation in states and territories, and in the implementation of NDIS worker screening arrangements.
  • There is overlap and duplication in provider regulatory and reporting requirements. For example, some providers have raised concerns about overlaps in requirements to report to the NDIS Commission as well as state and territory authorities on the use of restrictive practices.
  • Information sharing arrangements are not always in place to support closer collaboration between the NDIS Commission and state and territory authorities.
• The expectations of intermediaries such as plan managers, support coordinators and local area coordinators in quality and safeguarding are not always clear, despite significant interactions with participants.
• Awareness of the NDIS Commission and its role is low for some involved with the NDIS, particularly participants, and the split of responsibilities between the NDIS Commission and the NDIA is not well understood.