{"id":"F2025L01383","name":"National Disability Insurance Scheme (Approved Quality Auditors) Rules 2025","slug":"national-disability-insurance-scheme-approved-quality-auditors-rules-2025","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":443039,"registerId":"F2025L01383-fast-fetch-1775957948085","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-12","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"National Disability Insurance Scheme (Approved Quality Auditors) Rules 2025","content":"---\nmeta-content-style-type: text/css\nmeta-content-type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8\nmeta-keywords: \"[SEC=OFFICIAL:Sensitive]\"\n---\n\n![Commonwealth Coat of Arms of Australia](image.001.jpeg)\n\n \n\n \n\nNational Disability Insurance Scheme (Approved Quality Auditors) Rules 2025\n\nI, Louise Glanville, as delegate of the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, make the following rules.\n\nDated  13 November 2025\n\nLouise Glanville\n\nCommissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nContents\n\nPart 1—Preliminary\n\n1  Name\n\n2  Commencement\n\n3  Authority\n\n4  Definitions\n\nPart 2—Matters to which the Commissioner must or may have regard\n\n5  Purpose of this Part\n\n6  Matters to which the Commissioner must have regard when giving or refusing an approval of a person or body as an AQA\n\n7  Matters to which the Commissioner may have regard when making an approval subject to conditions\n\n8  Matters to which the Commissioner may have regard when revoking an approval as an AQA\n\nPart 3—Conditions of approval as an AQA\n\n9  Purpose of this Part\n\n10  Condition to prevent employment or engagement of a person against whom a banning order has been made\n\n11  Condition to ensure compliance with the Code of Conduct for AQAs\n\n \n\n \n\nPart 1—Preliminary\n\n1  Name\n\n  This instrument is the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Approved Quality Auditors) Rules 2025.\n\n2  Commencement\n\n (1) Each provision of this instrument specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms.\n\n \n\n- Commencement information\n- Column 1 Column 2 Column 3\n- Provisions Commencement Date/Details\n- 1. The whole of this instrument The day after this instrument is registered.\n\n\nNote: This table relates only to the provisions of this instrument as originally made. It will not be amended to deal with any later amendments of this instrument.\n\n (2) Any information in column 3 of the table is not part of this instrument. Information may be inserted in this column, or information in it may be edited, in any published version of this instrument.\n\n3  Authority\n\n  This instrument is made under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013.\n\n4  Definitions\n\nNote:  A number of expressions used in this instrument are defined in section 9 of the Act, including the following:\n\n(a)  approved quality auditor;\n\n(b) banning order;\n\n(c)  Commission;\n\n(d) Commissioner;\n\n(e) key personnel.\n\n  In this instrument:\n\nAct means the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013.\n\napplicant means a person or body who has made a request to be approved as an AQA under section 73U of the Act.\n\nAQA means a person or body approved by the Commissioner as under section 73U.\n\nAQA Code of Conduct means the Code of Conduct contained in Annex A of the AQA Guidelines.\n\nAQA Guidelines means the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Approved Quality Auditors Scheme) Guidelines 2018 (as existing from time to time).\n\nNote: The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Approved Quality Auditors Scheme) Guidelines 2018 could in 2025 be viewed on the Federal Register of Legislation website (https://legislation.gov.au).\n\nauditor means a person employed, contracted or otherwise engaged by the AQA to conduct an audit. An auditor includes an auditor‑in‑training and an audit team leader.\n\ncertification body means a body that has received JASANZ accreditation towards becoming an AQA.\n\nJASANZ means the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand being the body responsible for the accreditation of a certification body.\n\nJASANZ accreditation has the same meaning as in the AQA Guidelines (as existing from time to time).  \n\n\nPart 2—Matters to which the Commissioner must or may have regard\n\n5  Purpose of this Part\n\n (1) This Part is made for the purposes of subsection 73U(9A) of the Act.\n\n (2) It sets out the matters to which the Commissioner must or may have regard in deciding the following:\n\n (a) whether to give, or refuse to give, an approval under subsection 73U(1) of the Act;\n\n (b) whether or not to make an approval given under subsection 73U(1) of the Act subject to conditions;\n\n (c) whether or not to revoke an approval given under subsection 73U(1) of the Act;\n\n6  Matters to which the Commissioner must have regard when giving or refusing an approval as an AQA\n\n (1) This section is made for the purposes of paragraph 73U(9A)(a) of the Act.\n\n (2) The following are matters to which the Commissioner must have regard in deciding whether to give, or refuse to give, an approval under subsection 73U(1) of the Act:\n\n (a) whether the applicant holds, or has held, JASANZ accreditation;\n\n (b) whether the applicant has previously been approved as an AQA under subsection 73U(1) of the Act;\n\n (c) whether a banning order has ever been in force in relation to the applicant or any member of the applicant’s key personnel;\n\n (d) the applicant’s experience as a certification body; \n\n (e) the applicant’s understanding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme;  \n\n (f) the applicant’s ability to undertake participant centred audit practice;\n\n (g) any real or perceived conflict of interest, including any mitigation strategies.  \n\n7  Matters to which the Commissioner may have regard when making an approval subject to conditions\n\n (1) This section is made for the purposes of paragraph 73U(9A)(b) of the Act.\n\n (2) The following are matters to which the Commissioner may have regard in deciding whether or not to make an approval given under subsection 73U(1) of the Act subject to conditions:\n\n (a) the accreditation status of the applicant with JASANZ;\n\n (b) any non-compliance with the AQA Guidelines, including the AQA Code of Conduct.\n\n \n\n8  Matters to which the Commissioner may have regard when revoking an approval as an AQA\n\n (1) This section is made for the purposes of paragraph 73U(9A)(c) of the Act.\n\n (2) The following are matters to which the Commissioner may have regard in deciding whether to revoke an approval given under subsection 73U(1) of the Act:\n\n (a) any non-compliance with the AQA Guidelines, including the AQA Code of Conduct;\n\n (b) the AQA’s conduct, including compliance with relevant policies and standards;\n\n (c) any real or perceived conflict of interest in respect of undertaking NDIS audits for the AQA or the AQA’s key personnel;\n\n (d) any information from JASANZ in respect of the AQA’s performance;\n\n (e) Commission assessments of the quality of audits and reports undertaken by the AQA;\n\n (f) whether the AQA’s JASANZ accreditation has been suspended or revoked;\n\n (g) whether a banning order has ever been in force in relation to the AQA or any member of the AQA’s key personnel;\n\n (h) the AQA’s understanding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme;\n\n (i) the AQA’s ability to undertake participant centred audit practice.   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\nPart 3—Conditions of approval as an AQA\n\n9  Purpose of this Part\n\n (1) This Part is made for the purposes of subsection 73U(4A) of the Act.\n\n (2) It sets out conditions that apply to the approval of all AQAs.\n\n10  Condition to prevent employment or engagement of a person against whom a banning order has been made\n\n  The approval of an AQA is subject to the condition that the AQA must not:\n\n (a) employ or engage as a member of an audit team, or continue to employ or engage as a member of an audit team, a person against whom a banning order has been made; or\n\n (b) have, or continue to have, such a person as a member of the AQA’s key personnel.\n\n11  Condition to ensure compliance with the Code of Conduct for AQAs\n\n  The approval of an AQA is subject to the condition that the AQA must ensure that they and all of their auditors and personnel comply with the AQA Code of Conduct.   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The Rules do not alter who may be approved under the Act; they implement subsection 73U(9A) and 73U(4A) by specifying factors the Commissioner must or may consider and by imposing conditions on all approvals. They clarify decision‑making and compliance expectations without expanding or narrowing the statutory approval power (ss3,5,6–11)."},"complexity_factors":["Relatively narrow administrative focus: prescribes matters for decision-making and two standard conditions (ss5–11)","Reliance on external instruments and evolving materials (AQA Guidelines and AQA Code of Conduct referenced in definitions and ss4,11)","Discretion built into approval, conditioning and revocation decisions (must-have vs may-have regard lists in ss6–8)","Interplay with JASANZ accreditation and certification bodies (definitions; ss6(a),7(a),8(f)), creating cross‑agency dependency","Compliance burden concentrated on applicants/AQAs to obtain/maintain accreditation and ensure personnel compliance (ss6,7,10,11)","References to banning orders and key personnel create binary legal constraints requiring background checks and ongoing monitoring (ss4,6(c),10,8(g))","Limited substantive definitional complexity but operational complexity for implementation and monitoring (audit quality assessment and Commission evaluations in s8(e))"],"plain_english_summary":"These Rules set out how the NDIS Commissioner decides to approve, condition or revoke an \"approved quality auditor\" (AQA). They list mandatory and discretionary factors the Commissioner must consider (for example JASANZ accreditation, prior approvals, banning orders, experience and conflicts) and impose two universal conditions: AQAs must not employ people subject to banning orders (s10) and must ensure auditors comply with the AQA Code of Conduct (s11). Compliance and accreditation costs fall on applicants and approved AQAs (definitions; ss6,7,11)."},"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"A positive credit balance is required for all requests, including BYOK, so fallback providers remain available. Add credits at https://vercel.com/d?to=%2F%5Bteam%5D%2F%7E%2Fai%3Fmodal%3Dtop-up to continue.","source":"analysis-cron"},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The legislation appears consistent with its original purpose of regulating approved quality auditors under the NDIS. It establishes approval criteria and conditions as authorised by section 73U of the NDIS Act, without significant expansion beyond this regulatory function."},"complexity_factors":["Short instrument with only 11 sections across 3 Parts","Minimal defined terms (8 definitions in section 4, plus references to Act definitions)","Straightforward structure: preliminary matters, decision criteria, mandatory conditions","No nested exceptions or complex conditional logic","Heavy reliance on external documents (AQA Guidelines, JASANZ standards, Code of Conduct in Annex A) which are not reproduced in the instrument","Simple cross-referencing limited to the parent Act (NDIS Act 2013) and the AQA Guidelines"],"plain_english_summary":"This instrument sets the rules for who can be an Approved Quality Auditor (AQA) under the NDIS, spelling out the Commissioner’s decision criteria, mandatory conditions for approval, and required standards of conduct. It affects certification bodies seeking AQA status, the NDIS providers they audit, and people with disability whose safety and service quality depend on reliable audits.\n\nBy requiring recognised accreditation, checks for banning orders, participant‑centred auditing capability, and a binding Code of Conduct, it aims to keep auditors competent, independent and trustworthy."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/national-disability-insurance-scheme-approved-quality-auditors-rules-2025","history":"/api/acts/national-disability-insurance-scheme-approved-quality-auditors-rules-2025/history","analysis":"/api/acts/national-disability-insurance-scheme-approved-quality-auditors-rules-2025/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/national-disability-insurance-scheme-approved-quality-auditors-rules-2025/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/national-disability-insurance-scheme-approved-quality-auditors-rules-2025/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/national-disability-insurance-scheme-approved-quality-auditors-rules-2025/documents"}}