By Hayley Dean, Melba CEO
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) stands at a critical juncture. The fundamental promise of support for people with disability hinges on one non-negotiable principle: safety. Yet the current system of provider registration leaves this principle dangerously compromised, and more so for many participants who are most at risk due to the complexity of their needs.
Consider the stark reality: about 180,000 unregistered providers operate within the NDIS, compared with just 16,000 registered providers. This disparity is not merely a statistical anomaly – it represents a systemic failure that exposes people especially those with complex needs e to significant risk.
Unregistered providers currently operate with minimal accountability. They are not required to:
The implications are profound and potentially devastating. These providers can deliver critical personal care services – assisting with bathing, toileting and daily living activities – without meeting fundamental safety and professional standards.
To illustrate the absurdity, contrast this with other professional certifications. A bartender must obtain a Responsible Service of Alcohol (RSA) certification to pour a drink. Yet an unregistered NDIS provider can perform intimate, life-critical support services without any professional screening or mandatory training. This regulatory inconsistency is not just illogical – it’s dangerous.
Critics of mandatory registration argue that it does not guarantee safety, and they are right – registration alone cannot eliminate the risk of abuse or neglect. However, it does make it significantly easier to identify when abuse is occurring and take action. If a provider is registered, there are clear regulated pathways for reporting concerns, conducting investigations, and ensuring accountability. When a provider is unregistered, they are ‘unseen’ with none or minimal safeguards, making it harder to detect and prevent mistreatment. Registration provides an essential layer of security that ensures abuse is identified and addressed rather than going unnoticed.
The argument against mandatory registration often centres on preserving people’s choice. Proponents such as Dr George Taleporos have this week argued stringent registration requirements would limit service options. This perspective fundamentally misunderstands the nature of meaningful choice. True choice cannot exist in an environment where safety is compromised.
Mandatory registration would establish a baseline of professional competence. It would ensure that every provider delivering NDIS-funded support meets rigorous standards of:
Such requirements are not bureaucratic obstacles, but essential safeguards. They provide protections for participants, particularly those with complex support needs, from potential neglect or abuse.
The current unregulated environment creates significant vulnerabilities. Without comprehensive oversight, profit-driven providers can exploit systemic gaps, potentially prioritising financial gain over a person’s health and wellbeing. The absence of mandatory registration creates an environment where accountability has become optional rather than mandatory.
Registered providers such as Melba Support Services understand that robust regulation is a professional responsibility. We welcome independent scrutiny because we recognise that our fundamental purpose is supporting people to live their best life – free from abuse.
Mandatory registration is not about restricting choice, but about guaranteeing that every available choice meets fundamental safety and quality standards. It transforms the current two-tier system into a unified framework of professional excellence.
Policymakers must recognise the NDIS was established on the principles of empowerment and safeguarding. Mandatory provider registration is not a deviation from these principles, but their most authentic expression. It represents a commitment to ensuring people most at risk receive support from those who are demonstrably qualified, ethically sound and consistently monitored.
Registration should of course be proportionate, which means applying the right level of oversight based on the level of risk. For example, high-risk supports, such as personal care and support or shared living arrangements, need strong safeguards, while lower-risk services, such as social activities, shouldn’t be weighed down by unnecessary red tape.
Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, this strikes a balance between, upholding human rights, maintaining people’s safety and wellbeing, and avoiding unnecessary red tape that could drive up costs or limit service availability.
This is the pathway towards comprehensive reform that supported by the outcomes of the Disability Royal Commission and places the safety of people at the absolute centre of disability support services.
Mandatory registration is not just a policy recommendation – it is a moral imperative.
Share
