1. Utilitarian Ground Truth
2. Non-Discrimination

This Bill should be supported because it meaningfully reduces harm to NDIS participants by equipping the Commission and NDIA with sharper tools to deter, detect and respond to abuse, neglect and exploitation. By introducing graduated penalties and clear definitions of serious misconduct, it targets the worst offenders without unduly penalising trivial errors.

Strengthening the regulator’s information-gathering, monitoring and enforcement powers ensures that unsafe providers are held to account swiftly, thereby elevating the overall quality and safety of services. The new anti-promotion and expanded banning orders protect participants from misleading marketing and unscrupulous intermediaries, addressing key gaps identified by the Royal Commission and Independent Review.

Additional safeguards—such as the 90-day cooling-off period, electronic claims and flexible plan-variation funding—empower participants with clarity and control over their supports. Overall, these reforms promote equity and uphold the rights of people with disability [Judgment].

1. Value-Neutral / Epistemic Objection
2. Propertarianism

Even granting the goal of participant protection, this Bill risks imposing excessive complexity and cost on providers—particularly small and self-managed ones—without clear evidence that tougher penalties will improve outcomes. Increased compliance burdens, higher risk of regulatory action and faster turnaround demands for information may drive some providers out of the market, reducing choice and access for participants [Judgment].

Moreover, layering new administrative requirements (electronic claims, extended data-gathering powers, cooling-off processes) may strain NDIA resources and lead to unintended delays in payments and plan reviews. Without robust evaluation data, it is unclear whether these measures will deliver net benefits or simply create new obstacles for both participants and providers.