The NDIS at the Crossroads: An Unflinching Examination of Australia's Most Ambitious Social Reform

By DHD Consultancy

February 2025

Disclaimer: This publication is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or professional advice. DHD Consultancy accepts no liability for actions taken based on this content. All allegations of criminal conduct referenced herein relate to matters already prosecuted, charged, or officially confirmed by law enforcement agencies and government bodies. DHD Consultancy does not make independent allegations against specific individuals.

DHD Consultancy is committed to accuracy. If you identify any factual errors, please contact us for correction.

Let's Jump In!

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) has reached its most critical inflexion point since inception. After a decade of transformative growth, the scheme now finds itself battling existential threats on multiple fronts—systemic fraud reaching into organised crime, participant safety crises, workforce collapse, fundamental questions about financial sustainability, and a quality assurance system that is failing to protect those it was designed to serve.

As specialists in NDIS consultancy operating from Brisbane, we have a unique vantage point across Queensland's diverse provider landscape. What follows is not the sanitised government narrative, but an unflinching analysis of where the NDIS stands today, what's broken, what's working, and the reforms that will determine whether this $46 billion scheme survives its adolescence.

The Fraud Crisis: Organised Crime Meets Disability Support

The numbers are staggering, but they only tell part of the story. The Albanese government's Fraud Fusion Taskforce has launched over 635 investigations since November 2022, executed 110+ search warrants, and achieved 21 successful criminal prosecutions (Australian National Audit Office, 2025; Taylor, 2024). Yet these enforcement successes mask a darker reality.

According to evidence provided to Senate Estimates by NDIS integrity chief John Dardo in 2024, 90% of plan managers handling up to 100 participants—approximately 900 of 1,540 total—showed what were described as "significant indicators of fraud" (Taylor, 2024). It is important to note that "significant indicators of fraud" refers to matters warranting investigation, not proven criminal conduct. When asked by Senators whether NDIS funds were being diverted to purchase illicit substances, Dardo told Senate Estimates: "You name it, it is on the list" (Taylor, 2024).

The sophistication of fraud has evolved beyond opportunistic overcharging. In late 2024, authorities uncovered up to $50 million in allegedly fraudulent claims orchestrated by organised criminal gangs, including one network that submitted claims for participants who were literally in jail at the time of alleged service delivery (Taylor, 2024). Another case involved three Sydneysiders jailed over a $5.2 million fraud involving luxury vehicles and cryptocurrency (Taylor, 2024).

The uncomfortable truth: John Higgins, who resigned as a fraud investigator in 2020, subsequently told the media that the fraud department management was "almost dysfunctional" at that time and that there was "simply too much fraud for too few people" (Taylor, 2024). While the government has since grown the integrity workforce from 100 to over 800 specialists (Disability Support Guide, 2025), the system was left vulnerable during earlier periods, allowing criminal networks to establish sophisticated operations.

The NDIA's new "Digital Shield"—a program including mandatory myGov verification, slower payment processing, and pre-payment checks—represents what some observers have called belated recognition that you cannot "prosecute or audit your way out of" fundamental design flaws (Parliament of Australia, 2024). According to government reporting, these reforms include 20,000 high-risk claims reviewed monthly and $86 million blocked in 2024-25 alone (Disability Support Guide, 2025).

Participant Safety: The Rising Tide of Harm

While fraud dominates headlines, the crisis of participant safety demands equal attention. The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission received 111,345 complaints and reportable incidents in 2023-24—a 78% increase in complaints and 47% increase in reportable incidents year-on-year (NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, 2024a).

The data reveals disturbing patterns. In Q2 2024-25 alone, there were 6,267 reportable incidents affecting participants (excluding unauthorised restrictive practices), including:

• 1,441 incidents of abuse

• 778 deaths

• 2,358 cases of neglect

• 2,969 serious injuries

• 197 instances of sexual misconduct (NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, 2024b)

Critically, the Commonwealth Auditor-General's 2025 report found the NDIS Commission "does not have risk responsive and proportionate monitoring, compliance and enforcement activities" and lacks oversight of unregistered providers who comprise 94% of the market (Australian National Audit Office, 2025). In Q4 2024-25, there were 254,018 active unregistered providers versus just 16,363 registered ones (Australian National Audit Office, 2025).

The systemic failure: Unregistered providers—who can legally service plan-managed participants—received 42% of plan-managed NDIS payments while operating beyond the Commission's regulatory reach (Australian National Audit Office, 2025). This two-tier system creates structural challenges where some providers operate with less oversight than others.

The Commission's own data shows it lacks quality assurance processes for compliance activities and cannot effectively assess whether its interventions actually prevent harm (Australian National Audit Office, 2025). Meanwhile, complaints closed within 90 days dropped from 54% to just 27% in Q4 2024-25, suggesting the system is becoming overwhelmed despite a 74% increase in staff numbers (NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, 2024a, 2024b).

The Audit Lottery: How the NDIS Quality Auditor Scheme Is Failing Providers and Participants

There is a crisis of confidence at the very heart of NDIS quality assurance that few are talking about openly. As specialists who have worked across multiple Approved Quality Auditors (AQAs) currently operating in Australia—in roles ranging from auditor to senior management—we have witnessed firsthand a system so plagued by inconsistency that it has become a lottery for providers, with participant safety hanging in the balance.

The NDIS Quality Auditor Scheme, administered by the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand (JASANZ) and overseen by the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, is supposed to be the gatekeeper of quality and safety. Yet the reality is a fragmented, outdated system where the interpretation of standards varies wildly between auditors, between AQAs, and even within the same auditing firms (NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, 2023).

The Inconsistency Problem: Documented but Unaddressed

The NDIS Commission's own Regulatory Burden Consultation Insights Report (2023) confirms what industry insiders have long known: "Providers discussed challenges with the audit process and inconsistent practice with auditors in regards to the interpretation of practice standards, in some cases between auditors within the same company" (p. 12). This is not a minor administrative issue—it is a systemic failure that means a provider's compliance status depends less on their actual quality of care and more on which auditor happens to knock on their door.

Consider the practical implications. One AQA may interpret the "governance and operational management" module rigidly, demanding extensive board documentation that smaller providers struggle to produce, while another AQA focuses primarily on paper policies without testing operational reality. Some auditors conduct thorough staff interviews and participant observations; others perform cursory desktop reviews that miss critical risks. The result? Providers with genuinely poor practices can receive certification through lenient audits, while quality providers face major non-conformities for trivial documentation gaps under stricter interpretations.

The JPS Collapse: A Symptom of Deeper Dysfunction

The October 2025 suspension of JPS Audit Specialists Pty Ltd—the first suspension of its kind under the AQA Scheme—exposed the scheme's vulnerability to compromised integrity. JASANZ suspended JPS's accreditation following serious concerns about the firm "promoting an NDIS consultancy business to providers it was auditing," conduct that "undermined impartiality and breached the standards expected of AQAs" (NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, 2025a).

While the NDIS Commission acted decisively—imposing conditions, then ultimately revoking JPS's approval after it entered voluntary administration—the case raises troubling questions about oversight. How did a major AQA, approved since 2020, develop such a fundamental conflict of interest without earlier detection? The Commission's statement that this reflects "the strength of the regulatory partnership between the NDIS Commission and JASANZ" (NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, 2025a) arguably misses the point: robust partnerships should prevent such failures, not merely respond to them.

Outdated Standards and Communication Chaos

The NDIS Practice Standards have not undergone a comprehensive review since their introduction, despite the scheme's exponential growth and evolution (Australian Government, 2025). The Commission acknowledges it is "working closely with JASANZ to deliver quality improvements to the approved quality audit scheme" and "undertaking a review of Commissioner-made NDIS Rules and NDIS Practice Standards" (Australian Government, 2025), but progress is glacial.

Meanwhile, providers navigate what can only be described as a communication maze. The Commission's monthly auditor newsletters, intended to harmonise practice, instead contribute to confusion. The July 2025 "Plan Manager Audit Sampling" directive exemplified this: a communication that "suggested or inferred that all workers engaged to deliver any part of plan management services must provide certified qualifications" when this was not actually required, forcing the Commission to issue clarifications after industry pushback (Team DSC, 2025).

This is the "dog's breakfast" described by industry participants: a constant stream of updates, clarifications, and corrections that leave providers and auditors alike uncertain of baseline requirements. When audit requirements shift based on newsletter interpretations, consistency becomes impossible.

The Regional Rip-Off

Inconsistency has a geographic dimension that disproportionately harms regional and remote providers. The Regulatory Burden Consultation Report identified "the coverage of auditors in all States and Territories" as a significant issue, "in the context of the additional costs required to pay for travel and accommodation" (NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, 2023, p. 12).

With AQAs concentrated in metropolitan areas, regional providers face limited choice, higher costs, and often less experienced auditors who may apply standards differently due to isolation from peer calibration. The Disability Royal Commission's Recommendation 10.21 specifically urged assessment of "whether the number of approved quality auditors accredited for remote auditing and assessment should be increased" (Australian Government, 2025), yet this remains unaddressed.

What Must Change: Reforming the AQA Scheme

The NDIS Review and Disability Royal Commission have provided a roadmap for reform, but implementation urgency is lacking. Critical reforms needed include:

1. Standardised Auditor Training and Calibration

The current system relies on JASANZ accreditation without sufficient NDIS-specific standardisation. The Commission must implement mandatory, regular calibration sessions where auditors review identical case studies and align their interpretations. Discrepancies above a threshold should trigger retraining.

2. Published Audit Outcome Data

The Royal Commission recommended the Commission "collect and publish de-identified data about quality audit outcomes to inform best practice" (Australian Government, 2025). This transparency would expose variance between AQAs and create market pressure for consistency.

3. Clearer Communication Protocols

Monthly newsletters must be replaced with formal, version-controlled practice directives with clear, effective dates. Ad-hoc clarifications should cease; all guidance should be consolidated in a single, searchable repository.

4. Risk-Based Audit Intensity

The current one-size-fits-all approach wastes resources on low-risk providers while high-risk operations receive insufficient scrutiny. The Commission's promised "risk proportionate registration model" (Australian Government, 2025) must extend to audit intensity, with rigorous, extended audits for high-risk supports and streamlined processes for proven, low-risk providers.

5. AQA Performance Monitoring

The Commission must move beyond reactive suspension to proactive AQA performance monitoring. Regular analysis of audit outcomes by AQA—identifying statistical outliers in conformity rates—would flag potential inconsistencies before they harm participants.

The Bottom Line on Quality Assurance

The NDIS Quality Auditor Scheme is not merely inconsistent; it is potentially dangerous. When providers can shop for lenient auditors, when standards are interpreted according to auditor preference rather than objective criteria, and when communication from the regulator creates confusion rather than clarity, the scheme fails its core purpose: protecting participants.

For providers, the message is brutal. You are not being assessed against a consistent standard of quality and safety. You are navigating an interpretive maze where the same practice may pass or fail depending on your auditor's individual perspective. For participants, the implication is worse: the registration badge on a provider's door may indicate genuine quality, or it may merely indicate the provider found a permissive path through the audit lottery.

The NDIS Commission's partnership with JASANZ was intended to create a robust, internationally recognised quality assurance framework. Instead, we have a system that the Auditor-General found lacks "quality assurance processes for compliance activities" (Australian National Audit Office, 2025), where the regulator itself admits it cannot assess its own effectiveness.

The AQA scheme needs urgent, fundamental reform—not incremental improvements, but a complete overhaul of how auditors are trained, monitored, and held accountable. Until then, providers and participants alike are playing audit roulette, and the odds are not in their favour.

Legislative Reform: Band-Aids on Bullet Wounds?

The Albanese government has moved aggressively on legislative reform, but questions remain about whether these changes address root causes or merely symptoms.

The 2024-2025 Reform Package

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 introduced several structural changes:

1. The "In/Out" Lists

From October 2024, the NDIS defined what constitutes an "NDIS support" through transitional rules. Sex worker services, alcohol, and illicit drugs are explicitly excluded (NSW Government, 2024). However, Grattan Institute analysis suggests these lists are "unnecessarily complex, overbearing, bureaucratically burdensome, and will prove impossible for the NDIA to properly police" (Anania et al., 2024).

2. Mandatory Registration for High-Risk Supports

The government announced in December 2025 that from July 2026, all Supported Independent Living (SIL) providers and platform providers must register with the NDIS Commission (Mability, 2025; NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, 2025c). This follows recommendations from the NDIS Review and Disability Royal Commission, recognising that SIL services involve "24/7 support, shared accommodation, and a level of responsibility that directly impacts a person's safety" (NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, 2025c).

3. The Integrity and Safeguarding Bill 2025

This second tranche of reforms introduces:

• Higher civil penalties for aggravated contraventions

• New criminal offences for false or misleading information

• Anti-promotion orders to restrict exploitative marketing

• Evidentiary certificates to streamline court proceedings (NSW Government, 2024)

4. New Planning Framework

According to Grattan Institute analysis, the transition to "new framework plans" with 12-month funding periods and flexible budgets has been delayed until July 2026 due to complexity concerns (Anania et al., 2024). This represents an attempt to standardise what has been a highly variable process.

The Governance Gap

Despite these reforms, fundamental tensions remain unresolved. The "reasonable and necessary" criteria—once the cornerstone of individualised support—has been affected by cost-containment pressures. As researchers from Power to Persuade note, there's been a "low prevalence of rights-based terminology in policy documents, suggesting a diminished focus on rights over time" (Smith et al., 2024).

The scheme was designed for 410,000 people with "significant and permanent disability"; it now supports 739,414 participants (nearly 3% of Australia's population) (Taylor, 2024). Early projections estimated up to 1 million participants by 2034, though current trajectories and policy changes suggest this figure may not be realised.

What's Actually Working: The Unsung Successes

Amid the crisis narrative, important successes deserve recognition:

1. Financial Sustainability Gains

The scheme's growth has slowed from 22% annually (2021-22) to approximately 10.6% currently, tracking $520 million below forecasts (Australian Government Treasury, 2025). While still above the 8% National Cabinet target, this represents progress in expenditure control.

2. Participant Life Satisfaction

Despite systemic challenges, 56% of NDIS participants reported feeling satisfied with their lives in 2024-25—substantially higher than pre-NDIS baselines (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2025). For many, particularly those with psychosocial disability or acquired brain injury, the NDIS has been genuinely transformative, providing supports that simply didn't exist under previous block-funded models.

3. Early Intervention (Selectively)

The Early Childhood Approach has demonstrated measurable benefits for children with developmental delays, though recent restrictions on mild-to-moderate autism access have created controversy (Taylor, 2024). The scheme's capacity to provide early intensive intervention remains a significant improvement over previous state-based systems.

4. Digital Integrity Systems

The $86 million blocked in claims through pre-payment reviews (Disability Support Guide, 2025) demonstrates that technological interventions can work. The shift from instant payments to 2-3 day processing with manual reviews has created a necessary friction that disrupts automated fraud.

What Is Not Working: The Structural Failures

1. The Workforce Crisis

The sector faces an existential workforce shortage. Recent surveys reveal:

• 78% of providers find recruitment "extremely or moderately difficult" (National Disability Services, 2025a)

• 55% of disability workers have considered leaving in the last 12 months (Health Services Union, 2025)

• 30%+ annual turnover rates (National Disability Services, 2025a)

• 49% of workers report they "often or always" lack sufficient staff for safe care (Health Services Union, 2025)

The crux: 71% of workers say workforce shortages have already impacted their ability to provide care they would want for a loved one (Health Services Union, 2025). This is a quality crisis masquerading as a staffing problem.

2. Market Failure in Regional Areas

"Thin markets"—where insufficient providers exist to create competition—have left regional and remote participants stranded. In remote WA, over one-third of mature participants aren't accessing daily activity supports, and over one-quarter aren't accessing therapy (National Disability Services, 2025b; Scoping Study into Thin Markets, 2024).

The market-based model assumes providers will enter underserved areas if demand exists. The reality is that without block funding or "provider of last resort" mechanisms, participants in thin markets face impossible choices: relocate to major cities, go without support, or accept lower-quality services from the only available provider (National Disability Services, 2025b; Scoping Study into Thin Markets, 2024).

3. Provider Financial Viability

Over 55% of NDIS providers operated at a loss in 2023-24, up from 51.4% the previous year (National Disability Insurance Scheme Review, 2023). The current pricing model fails to account for true compliance costs, workforce training, and regional service delivery challenges. This creates a perverse incentive where only providers willing to cut corners can survive, or where quality providers must cross-subsidise NDIS services from other revenue streams.

4. The Planning Lottery

As noted by the Grattan Institute, budgets remain determined by "the judgment of individual planners" rather than objective assessment, leading to "variability, inequity, and inconsistency" (Anania et al., 2024). Participants with identical conditions receive vastly different funding based on their ability to advocate, the quality of their supporting documentation, and which NDIA planner they happen to be assigned.

The Reforms That Actually Matter: A Roadmap for Survival

Based on current evidence and emerging best practice, DHD Consultancy recommends the following priority reforms:

Immediate (2025-2026)

1. Universal Provider Registration

The July 2026 mandatory registration for SIL and platform providers must be the starting point, not the endpoint. The two-tier registered/unregistered system creates regulatory arbitrage that undermines the entire market. While 94% of providers are currently unregistered, the Commission must develop proportionate registration pathways for smaller providers rather than accepting the status quo.

2. Functional Assessment Integration

The new planning framework must incorporate functional assessment alongside needs assessment, as recommended by the Grattan Institute (Anania et al., 2024). This would create transparent, evidence-based budget setting while reducing variability in planning decisions.

3. Workforce Compact Implementation

The Health Services Union's proposed $5/hour Workforce Compact represents the minimum investment required to stabilise the workforce (Health Services Union, 2025). Without immediate wage intervention, workforce attrition will accelerate beyond recovery.

4. Urgent AQA Scheme Reform

The NDIS Quality Auditor Scheme requires immediate overhaul. Standardised training, published audit outcome data, proactive AQA performance monitoring, and risk-based audit intensity must replace the current inconsistent, outdated system (NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, 2023; Australian Government, 2025).

Medium-Term (2026-2028)

5. Provider of Last Resort Framework

The Disability Royal Commission's Recommendation 10.10 for a "provider of last resort" scheme requires implementation (Scoping Study into Thin Markets, 2024). This requires coordinated federal-state funding to guarantee service provision in thin markets, using block funding where individualised models fail.

6. Independent Pricing Authority

Transition NDIS pricing to an independent authority (such as IHACPA) as proposed by National Disability Services (National Disability Services, 2025b). Current pricing mechanisms lack transparency and fail to account for true service delivery costs, particularly in regional areas and for complex supports.

7. Thin Market Commissioning

Develop commissioning approaches for quality services in thin markets, including rural and remote areas (National Disability Services, 2025b). This requires moving beyond the current market failure approach to proactive market stewardship.

Structural (2028-2030)

8. Foundational Supports Integration

The interface between NDIS and mainstream services (health, education, housing) must be clarified. Currently, participants fall into gaps between systems, with the NDIA and state governments disputing funding responsibilities while individuals go without support (Robinson-Chen, 2025).

9. Supported Decision Making Mandate

The NDIA must fully implement its Supported Decision Making policy to expand access to advocacy and planning assistance (Anania et al., 2024). The current model assumes participants can navigate complex systems independently—an assumption that fails many, particularly those with cognitive impairment or limited English.

The Bottom Line: A Scheme at Risk

The NDIS is not failing, but it is fraying at the edges. The $46 billion scheme has achieved remarkable outcomes for hundreds of thousands of Australians with disabilities, transforming lives that previous systems abandoned to institutionalisation or family burnout.

However, the convergence of organised criminal exploitation, workforce collapse, market failure in regional areas, unsustainable cost growth, and a broken quality assurance system creates an existential risk. Without fundamental structural reform—not just integrity crackdowns—the NDIS risks collapsing under its own weight, taking with it the promise of genuine disability rights in Australia.

For providers, the message is clear: the era of easy growth is over. Survival requires operational excellence, robust compliance systems, and genuine participant outcomes. You are navigating multiple lotteries—the planning lottery, the audit lottery, the pricing lottery—where consistency and fairness are in short supply.

For participants, the message is equally stark: the system that promised "choice and control" now requires sophisticated navigation skills to avoid harm and secure appropriate supports. The registration badge on a provider's door may indicate quality, or it may simply indicate they found a permissive auditor.

The NDIS was Australia's most ambitious social reform since Medicare. Whether it becomes our greatest policy success or our most expensive mistake will be determined by the reforms implemented in the next 24 months. The window for corrective action is narrowing.

About DHD Consultancy

DHD Consultancy provides strategic advisory services to NDIS providers across Queensland, specialising in compliance, operational efficiency, and sustainable growth in an increasingly complex regulatory environment. Based in Brisbane, we work with providers navigating the most challenging period in NDIS history.

For confidential discussion about your organisation's NDIS strategy, contact DHD Consultancy.

References

Anania, A., Moloney, J., & Stobart, A. (2024, October 27). The NDIS is changing how plans are set – but independent assessments are not 'in' and it's not yet clear what is 'out'.

Grattan Institute. https://grattan.edu.au/news/the-ndis-is-changing-how-plans-are-set-but-independent-assessments-are-not-in-and-its-not-yet-clear-what-is-out/

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2025). Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings, 2024. ABS. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/disability/disability-ageing-and-carers-australia-summary-findings/latest-release

Australian Government. (2025). Recommendation 10.21 – Registration and audit process. Disability Royal Commission Progress Report 2025. https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/disability-royal-commission-progress-report-2025/volume-10-disability-services/recommendation-1021-registration-and-audit-process

Australian Government Treasury. (2025, March). 2025 Intergenerational Report: Australia over the next 40 years. Commonwealth of Australia. https://treasury.gov.au/publication/2025-intergenerational-report

Australian National Audit Office. (2025). Effectiveness of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission's regulatory functions (Report No. 2, 2025-26). ANAO. https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/effectiveness-the-ndis-quality-and-safeguards-commissions-regulatory-functions-2025

Disability Support Guide. (2025, April 28). Taskforce tackles NDIS fraud. https://www.disabilitysupportguide.com.au/news/opinion/taskforce-tackles-ndis-fraud

Health Services Union. (2025, January 29). The majority of disability workers consider leaving the sector due to low pay and unsustainable conditions: Survey. HSU. https://www.hsu.net.au/news/2025/majority-of-disability-workers-consider-leaving-sector-due-to-low-pay-and-unsustainable-conditions-survey

Mability. (2025, October 27). NDIS crackdown: Mandatory registration for all SIL providers from July 2026. https://mability.io/ndis-crackdown-mandatory-registration-for-all-sil-providers-from-july-2026/

National Disability Insurance Scheme Review. (2023). Working together to deliver the NDIS. Australian Government. https://www.ndisreview.gov.au/

National Disability Services. (2025a). Workforce Census. https://www.nds.org.au/

National Disability Services. (2025b). State of the Disability Sector Report 2024. https://www.nds.org.au/resources/state-disability-sector-report-2024

NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. (2023). Regulatory burden consultation insights report. https://www.ndiscommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-09/Regulatory-Burden-Consultation-Insights-Report-July-2023.pdf

NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. (2024a). Quarterly Performance Report: Quarter 4 2023-24. https://www.ndiscommission.gov.au/document/quarterly-performance-report-quarter-4-2023-24

NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. (2024b). Quarterly Performance Report: Quarter 2 2024-25. https://www.ndiscommission.gov.au/document/quarterly-performance-report-quarter-2-2024-25

NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. (2025a, October 21). Statement on conditions imposed on JPS Audit Specialists Pty Ltd [Media release]. https://www.ndiscommission.gov.au/media-centre/statement-conditions-imposed-jps-audit-specialists-pty-ltd

NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. (2025b, November 28). Update on JPS Audit Specialists and transition of audit services [Media release]. https://www.ndiscommission.gov.au/media-centre/update-jps-audit-specialists-and-transition-audit-services

NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. (2025c). Mandatory registration for supported independent living and platform providers. https://www.ndiscommission.gov.au/news/mandatory-registration-supported-independent-living-and-platform-providers

NSW Government. (2024, November). New NDIS reforms commencing. Department of Communities and Justice. https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/resources/new-ndis-reforms-commencing

Parliament of Australia. (2024, November 21). Additional estimates. Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/senate/community_affairs/ndis/~/~/link.aspx

Robinson-Chen, C. (2025, January 23). NDIS disruption leaves many disability participants in limbo: Here's what should happen instead. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/ndis-disruption-leaves-many-disability-participants-in-limbo-heres-what-should-happen-instead-247477

Scoping Study into Thin Markets. (2024). Scoping Study into Thin Markets for Disability Services in Australia. Australian Government Department of Social Services. https://www.dss.gov.au/disability-and-carers/programs-services-for-people-with-disability/national-disability-insurance-scheme/scoping-study-into-thin-markets-for-disability-services-in-australia

Smith, S., Lutz, A., Yates, S., & Carey, G. (2024, March 5). It is time to change the way we talk about the NDIS. Power to Persuade. https://powertopersuade.org.au/blog/it-is-time-to-change-the-way-we-talk-about-the-ndis

Taylor, C. (2024, November 22). Inside the plan to fight fraud. News.com.au. https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/inside-the-plan-to-fight-fraud/news-story/7891d69e765f9a85019e6696e58c4c6c

Team DSC. (2025, July 14). Quality & safeguarding July update: Plan manager audit sampling. https://teamdsc.com.au/resources/quality-safeguarding-july-update-2025