The Commission issued 326 banning orders in 2025–26 and names neglect and sexual misconduct among the issues behind them.
Banning orders were one of five statutory enforcement tools the Commission reported using. Compliance notices grew far more than banning orders in absolute terms.
The annual report names two issues behind the banning orders: neglect and sexual misconduct involving participants. It also names findings from fraud investigations and criminal history. The table below sets out the Code of Conduct duties that relate most closely to unsafe care and participant harm. These duties come from the Commission’s Code of Conduct worker guidance, not from the annual report.
| Code of Conduct duty | What it asks of providers and workers |
|---|---|
| Provide supports safely and competently | Deliver supports and services in a safe and competent manner, with care and skill. |
| Act on concerns | Promptly take steps to raise and act on concerns about matters that may affect the quality and safety of supports. |
| Prevent and respond to violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation | Take all reasonable steps to prevent and respond to all forms of violence against, and exploitation, neglect and abuse of, people with disability. |
| Prevent and respond to sexual misconduct | Take all reasonable steps to prevent and respond to sexual misconduct. |
The duties are paraphrased from the NDIS Code of Conduct worker guidance (April 2024 version).
Section 73ZN of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 sets the grounds. The grounds differ slightly by who the order is against, but they follow a common pattern.
| Ground | Providers (s73ZN(1)) | Workers and key personnel (s73ZN(2)) |
|---|---|---|
| Reasonable belief the person has contravened, is contravening or is likely to contravene the Act | Yes | Yes |
| Reasonable belief the person has been involved in, or is likely to be involved in, another person’s contravention | Yes | Yes |
| Reasonable belief the person is not suitable, having regard to matters in the NDIS rules | Yes | Yes |
| Reasonable belief of immediate danger to the health, safety or wellbeing of a person with disability if the person continues | Yes, as a provider | Yes, if they continue the specified activities |
| Conviction for an offence involving fraud or dishonesty | Yes | Yes |
| Insolvent under administration | Yes | Yes |
| Registration revoked | Yes | Not listed |
Source: National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, section 73ZN(1) and (2), Compilation No. 28 (in force from 1 October 2026). Sections 73ZN(2A) and (2B) add further grounds for people who have not worked for a provider, for applicants for registration and for approved quality auditors.
The Act says a banning order can apply generally or in a limited way, can be permanent or for a specified period, and can carry conditions (s73ZN(3)). The Commissioner must give the person a chance to make submissions first, except where the grounds include immediate danger or a revocation of registration (s73ZN(7) and (8)). The order must include a statement of reasons (s73ZN(9)).
The report gives one worked example. The Commission affirmed a 10-year banning order under section 73ZN(2) after finding the person was not suitable to be involved in providing supports and that there was an immediate danger to the health, safety or wellbeing of people with disability. The Administrative Review Tribunal concluded the section 73ZN(2) criteria were met.
Division 7 of Part 3A of the Act protects people who make a disclosure that qualifies for protection. Section 73ZC prohibits victimisation in two ways:
Both carry civil penalties, and section 73ZD makes the person liable to compensate anyone who suffers damage. Threatening to withdraw a participant’s essential supports because they made a protected disclosure is an example of the kind of conduct these provisions are aimed at. Whether a particular act is a contravention depends on the facts, including the detriment and the intent.
A contravention of the Act is itself a ground for a banning order under section 73ZN, so victimisation can come within that ground. The annual report does not say how many orders, if any, involved victimisation. Participants, families and advocates can report concerns about the quality or safety of NDIS supports to the Commission.
For the register’s own count of orders by duration, see Banning orders: permanent, fixed-term and what they prohibit. For the wider picture, see NDIS banning orders rise 68%.
Sources: NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, Annual Report 2025–26, table 2 and commentary (pages 59–60) and case summaries (pages 42–43); the NDIS Code of Conduct worker guidance (April 2024); and the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, sections 73ZC, 73ZD and 73ZN (Compilation No. 28, registered 12 October 2026). All retrieved 13 November 2026. The Commission material is © Commonwealth of Australia and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 unless stated otherwise (see the Commission’s copyright and disclaimer page). The counts, calculations and commentary on this page are our own analysis of that material, and the Commission has not reviewed or endorsed them.
The Code of Conduct sets duties on safe support and acting on concerns. Policy Sign-Off & Comprehension Checks records that your workers have read and understood your policies.
See how Policy Sign-Off & Comprehension Checks handles thisGeneral information only, not legal advice. Spotted an error? Email [email protected].