The Order introduces several defined terms that are critical to understanding how the screening regime operates.

Applicant and NDIS-registered person. An "applicant" is a person who has applied for registration in the NDIS endorsed category (clause 3(1)). An "NDIS-registered person" is someone already registered in that category. The distinction matters because the Order applies to risk assessments for applicants and additional risk assessments for existing registered persons. The Registrar’s powers under clauses 5, 6, and 8 differ slightly depending on which category the person falls into.

NDIS-relevant offence. This is a composite definition (clause 3(1)). It includes: (a) any "relevant offence" as defined in the Act (which itself picks up serious offences under Tasmanian law); (b) any "presumed exclusion offence"; and (c) any offence specified in Part 3 of Schedule 1. It also covers substantially similar offences under a corresponding law (i.e., an interstate or Commonwealth law). This means a conviction for an equivalent offence in another state counts. The breadth is significant: "relevant offence" in the Act already covers a wide range of sexual, violent, and drug offences; adding the Schedule 1 offences expands it further into areas such as animal cruelty, traffic offences causing death, and certain drug trafficking offences.

Presumed exclusion offence. Defined in clause 3(1) as an offence specified in Part 2 of Schedule 1 or a substantially similar offence under a corresponding law. Part 2 lists 11 categories of offences, ranging from murder (without intent to cause death in some cases) and manslaughter, through to sexual offences against persons who are not children or at-risk adults, drug offences involving trafficable quantities or involving children or at-risk persons, and offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act and Animal Welfare Act. The key feature is that a conviction for a presumed exclusion offence triggers an automatic negative notice unless the Registrar is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist (clause 9(1)). A pending charge for a presumed exclusion offence or any "disqualifying offence" (as defined in the Act) also triggers the mandatory negative notice.

Exceptional circumstances. Clause 9(2) provides that exceptional circumstances are not limited to the circumstances of the offence itself. The Registrar may consider the person’s conduct since the offence, rehabilitation, the nature of the risk, and any other factors. The burden is on the applicant or registered person to demonstrate that they do not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to a person with disability. The standard is high, and the Registrar has broad discretion. This is a critical concept because it is the only escape from the mandatory negative notice.

At-risk person and person under care. Schedule 1, Part 1 defines these. "At-risk person" means an adult who is or may be unable to take care of themselves or protect themselves from harm or exploitation due to age, illness, or disability. "Person under care" means a child or at-risk person who has a relationship with the relevant person in the context of receiving support or services. These definitions are used to classify offences in Parts 2 and 3. Many offences become presumed exclusion or specified offences only if committed against a child or at-risk person, or against a person under care. This reflects the targeted nature of the screening: it focuses on conduct that is most relevant to the vulnerability of NDIS participants.

The Order directly affects three groups: applicants for NDIS endorsed registration, existing NDIS-registered persons, and the Registrar who conducts the risk assessments. Indirectly, it affects NDIS providers, employers in the disability sector, and NDIS participants who rely on screened workers.

Applicants. Any person who applies for registration in the child and vulnerable adult-related (NDIS endorsed) category in Tasmania is automatically subject to this Order’s assessment framework. This includes new entrants to the disability workforce and existing workers who previously held other registration categories but now need the NDIS endorsement. The applicant bears the cost of the application fee and the time and legal or administrative burden of providing information to the Registrar, especially if they have any criminal history. Applicants with a presumed exclusion offence face a very high hurdle: they must convince the Registrar of exceptional circumstances or face refusal.

NDIS-registered persons. A person who already holds the NDIS endorsed registration is subject to additional risk assessments triggered by new relevant information under clause 11. Any suspicion, charge, conviction, or finding of guilt for an NDIS-relevant offence can prompt a fresh assessment. The Registrar may also take into account changes in the person’s circumstances (e.g., a pending charge was resolved) and potentially impose a negative notice later. This creates ongoing uncertainty for registered persons: a charge that is later dropped still constitutes "new relevant information" at the time it is made, and the Registrar may conduct a risk assessment based on that information. The person must participate in that assessment and may need to provide submissions.

NDIS providers and employers. Providers who employ workers in the NDIS endorsed category must ensure that those workers hold valid registration. If a worker receives a negative notice or has their registration cancelled, the provider cannot lawfully engage that worker in NDIS endorsed activity. The Order indirectly imposes a compliance burden on providers: they must monitor their workers’ registration status and respond to any changes. Providers also bear the cost of replacing workers who are removed from the register, which may be substantial in a tight labour market.

NDIS participants. The ultimate beneficiaries are NDIS participants, who gain the assurance that workers interacting with them have been screened against a higher standard. However, there is a trade-off: the stricter screening may reduce the supply of workers, particularly in regional and remote areas, as persons with minor or historical offences are excluded or deterred from applying. Participants may face longer wait times or reduced choice of providers if the screening pipeline creates bottlenecks.

The Registrar. The Registrar is the decision-maker under the Act. This Order expands the matters the Registrar may take into account (clause 5) and imposes a mandatory duty to issue a negative notice in certain circumstances (clause 9). The Registrar must also make findings about exceptional circumstances. This creates administrative workload and exposes decisions to potential judicial review if the Registrar misapplies the criteria or fails to consider relevant matters.

Registrar’s duty to issue a negative notice (clause 9). This is the most prescriptive duty in the Order. If an applicant or NDIS-registered person has been convicted as an adult of a presumed exclusion offence, or has charges pending for a presumed exclusion offence or a disqualifying offence, the Registrar must issue a negative notice. The only exception is if the Registrar is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist such that the person does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to a person with disability. The duty is mandatory, not discretionary. The Registrar has no power to issue a conditional registration; they must issue the negative notice unless the exceptional circumstances test is met. This is a significant departure from standard risk assessment, where the Registrar has a range of possible outcomes.

Registrar’s discretionary powers in risk assessment (clauses 5 and 6). The Registrar may take into account the matters in clause 5(1) - including the child-related risk assessment order, any NDIS risk assessment manual, and NDIS-relevant offences - and in clause 5(2) for additional risk assessments, matters in section 28(1A) of the Act. When considering a matter, the Registrar may consider a range of factors under clause 6(2): nature and gravity of the offence, time passed, vulnerability of the victim, pattern of conduct, conduct since the offence, and other relevant circumstances. These are permissive, not mandatory: the Registrar "may" consider them if relevant. This means the Registrar has broad latitude to weigh factors. There is no specified weighting or hierarchy.

Right to provide information (clause 8). The applicant or NDIS-registered person may provide information to the Registrar that they believe may be relevant to the risk assessment, at any time before the assessment is completed. The Registrar may take that information into account. This is a procedural right, not a guarantee that the information will be determinative. It gives the person an opportunity to explain their circumstances, provide evidence of rehabilitation, or challenge the accuracy of information.

Rights to reapply after negative notice (clause 10). Clause 10 specifies what constitutes a "significant and exceptional change in circumstances" for the purposes of section 19(3)(b) of the Act, which allows a person who has received a negative notice or had registration cancelled to apply for a fresh assessment. The examples include: the person was not found guilty of pending proceedings that had been taken into account; a finding of guilt was quashed or set aside; or another finding taken into account has ceased to have effect. Clause 10(3) makes clear this list is not exhaustive - the Registrar can allow an application even if these specific circumstances are not met, if satisfied there has been a significant and exceptional change. This provides a pathway back to registration for persons whose circumstances have genuinely changed, but the threshold is high.

No right to have conduct disregarded (clause 7). The Registrar must not take into account conduct that was an offence at the time it occurred but would not be an offence at the time of the application. This is a rare protective provision: it prevents the Registrar from considering historical conduct that has since been decriminalised. It does not apply to conduct that was not an offence at the time but later became one - that conduct is simply irrelevant anyway.

The Order itself does not create penalties. Penalties arise under the parent Act, the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act 2013. The Order operates as the framework for risk assessment, and the consequence of an adverse assessment is the issue of a negative notice or cancellation of registration. It is an offence under the Act for a person to engage in regulated activity (including NDIS endorsed activity) without holding the relevant registration. The maximum penalty for working without registration is a fine, the amount of which is set by the Act (not specified in the Order, but typically 100 penalty units for an individual and 500 for a body corporate). Additionally, a person who is issued a negative notice cannot reapply for registration unless there has been a significant and exceptional change in circumstances (section 19 of the Act, as interpreted by clause 10).

The enforcement mechanism is largely proactive: providers are expected to check the register and ensure their workers are authorised. The Registrar may also conduct audits or respond to complaints. There is no provision in the Order for the Registrar to impose fines or sanctions directly; the enforcement is through the criminal law for non-compliance.

A key feature is that the Order creates a stricter regime for NDIS endorsed activity than for standard child-related activity. This means a person who holds registration for child-related activity but not NDIS endorsed activity cannot lawfully work with NDIS participants. If a person misrepresents their registration status, they may be liable for offences under the Act or under general criminal law (e.g., fraud).

The Order is explicitly tied to several other legal instruments. First, it operates under the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act 2013 (Tasmania). The Act provides the overarching framework: registration categories, negative notices, appeals to the Magistrates Court, and general administrative powers. The Order fills in the details for one specific category. The Act’s definitions of "relevant offence" and "disqualifying offence" are incorporated by reference into the definition of NDIS-relevant offence (clause 3(1)(a) and (b)). Any amendment to the Act’s definition of "relevant offence" will automatically affect the Order’s scope.

Second, the Order cross-references Commonwealth NDIS rules: the NDIS (Provider Registration and Practice Standards) Rules 2018 and the NDIS (Practice Standards - Worker Screening) Rules 2018. These rules define terms used in the Order (clause 3(2)). For example, terms like "NDIS" and possibly "NDIS endorsed activity" take their meaning from those Commonwealth rules. This creates an interlocking regime where changes to Commonwealth instruments can affect Tasmania’s risk assessment framework without a Tasmanian amendment. There is a risk of regulatory gap if the Commonwealth amends its rules and the Tasmanian Order fails to keep pace, but the Order attempts to mitigate this by referencing the rules "as amended from time to time."

Third, the Order interacts with specific Tasmanian criminal laws. Schedule 1 lists offences from the Criminal Code, the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001, the Police Offences Act 1935, the Animal Welfare Act 1993, the Firearms Act 1996, the Family Violence Act 2004, the Justices Act 1959, and the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997. This is not an exhaustive list of all criminal laws, but it sets the boundaries for which offences trigger the presumed exclusion or specified regimes. A conviction under an offence not listed may still be considered as a "relevant offence" under the Act, but it will not trigger the mandatory negative notice under clause 9. The interaction with the Act’s own definition of "relevant offence" is layered: an offence can be both a relevant offence under the Act and an NDIS-relevant offence under the Order, but the Order’s additional rules (presumed exclusion, specified offences) apply only to NDIS endorsed registration.

Fourth, the Order incorporates "corresponding law" - an interstate or Commonwealth law that is substantially similar to a Tasmanian offence listed in the Schedules. This means a conviction in another state for a similar offence counts for the purposes of the Order. This avoids duplicative screening but relies on the Registrar to determine substantial similarity, which introduces uncertainty.

Fifth, the Order interacts with the Acts Interpretation Act 1931 (clause 3(3)), which applies to the interpretation of the Order as if it were by-laws. This is a standard provision ensuring consistent interpretation across Tasmanian subordinate legislation.

The Order itself has no amendment history provided in the source. It was notified in the Gazette on 30 December 2020. It commenced on the day the last uncommenced provision of the Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Amendment Act 2019 commenced (clause 2). That Amendment Act made changes to the parent Act to accommodate the NDIS endorsed category and introduce the power to make this Order. Because the Order is a statutory rule, it can be amended by further orders without a new Act. Any future changes to the NDIS worker screening rules, or to the list of offences in the Schedules, would likely be done via amendment to this Order. Practitioners should check the current version on the Tasmanian legislation website, as the source provided reflects the in-force text as at 12 April 2026. There may have been subsequent amendments not shown.

The source does not mention any litigation directly under this Order. However, litigation could arise in several scenarios. First, the Registrar’s decision to issue a negative notice or cancel registration is reviewable by the Tasmanian Magistrates Court under section 50 of the Act. The Court would apply the Order’s provisions, including the interpretation of "exceptional circumstances" and the scope of the Registrar’s discretion under clause 6. There is likely to be case law developing the meaning of "exceptional circumstances" in this specific NDIS context, possibly drawing on analogous cases under the child-related activity order.

Second, a challenge could be mounted on procedural fairness grounds: for example, if the Registrar made a decision without giving the person an adequate opportunity to provide information under clause 8, or if the Registrar took into account a matter not listed in clause 5. The broad discretion given to the Registrar may make it difficult to succeed on a merits review, but procedural errors could lead to a decision being set aside.

Third, the interaction between the Order and Commonwealth NDIS rules could generate jurisdictional disputes. If the Commonwealth amends its risk assessment manual and the Registrar relies on that revised manual, a person could argue that the update was not properly incorporated or that the Registrar applied an irrelevant consideration. The courts would need to interpret clause 5(1)(b) - specifically whether "as amended from time to time" gives the Registrar automatic power to apply un-notified Commonwealth documents. There is no Tasmanian authority on point at the time of writing.

Several features of the Order pose traps for the unwary.

Mandatory negative notice regardless of merits. Under clause 9, a conviction for a presumed exclusion offence triggers an automatic negative notice unless the Registrar is satisfied of exceptional circumstances. The person cannot argue that they pose a low risk because of their current circumstances; they must affirmatively prove exceptional circumstances. The burden is on the applicant or registered person. This is more onerous than the standard risk assessment where the Registrar weighs all factors. A person with a single, well-rehabilitated conviction for a listed offence may still be excluded unless they can show something truly exceptional. The term "exceptional circumstances" is not defined beyond being not limited to the circumstances of the offence. This gives the Registrar wide discretion but also creates unpredictability.

Broad scope of "new relevant information." Clause 11 defines new relevant information as any suspicion, charge, conviction, or finding of guilt for an NDIS-relevant offence. Note that "suspected of having committed" is included. This is a very low threshold. The Registrar can conduct an additional risk assessment based on a suspicion alone, without any formal charge. This could be triggered by a report from a provider, a police tip-off, or even an anonymous complaint. The person might not even know they are under suspicion until the Registrar commences the assessment. This creates a chilling effect and the potential for vexatious or unfounded allegations to disrupt a person’s employment.

Retrospective effect of historical conduct. The Order applies to offences committed at any time, subject only to clause 7 (conduct no longer an offence). A conviction from decades ago for a presumed exclusion offence will still trigger the mandatory negative notice. The Registrar may consider the passage of time under clause 6(2)(b), but only in the context of determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, not as a bar to the notice itself. This means a person with a very old conviction, who has lived an exemplary life since, still faces the presumption of exclusion. Only if they can show exceptional circumstances can they avoid a negative notice.

Interaction with other registration categories. The Order applies only to the NDIS endorsed category. A person who is refused registration in that category may still hold registration in the child-related activity category (if that is separate) and could work with children but not with NDIS participants. However, if the refusal is based on a conviction that is also a relevant offence under the Act, they may also lose their child-related registration. The Order does not create a standalone pathway for partial registration; it is all or nothing for the NDIS endorsed category.

Cost of reapplication. If a person receives a negative notice under this Order, they cannot reapply until there is a significant and exceptional change in circumstances (clause 10). That is a high bar. Even then, the Registrar has discretion to allow the application. There is no automatic right to reapply after a set period, unlike some other Australian screening schemes. This creates a permanent barrier for many persons, even those with minor offences that are not listed as presumed exclusion but that the Registrar considered relevant in the original assessment.

Reliance on Commonwealth manuals. Clause 5(1)(b) incorporates any risk assessment manual prepared for NDIS worker screening, as amended from time to time. These manuals may not be publicly available in a consolidated form, or may change without notice. The Order does not require the Registrar to notify persons of changes to the manual or to provide a copy. A person undergoing a risk assessment may not know the full criteria the Registrar is using.

Compliance with this Order is primarily about managing registration status. For an applicant, the first step is to determine whether they need registration in the NDIS endorsed category. If they do, they must submit an application to the Registrar under the Act. Before applying, they should review the list of presumed exclusion offences in Schedule 1, Part 2, and the specified offences in Part 3. If they have any conviction or pending charge for any of these, they should seek legal advice on whether they can demonstrate exceptional circumstances. It is advisable to gather evidence of rehabilitation, character references, and any circumstances that might mitigate risk, such as the passage of time, age of the victim, or lack of pattern. Under clause 8, the applicant may provide this information to the Registrar at any time before the assessment is completed. It is better to provide it proactively rather than wait for the Registrar to request it.

For an NDIS-registered person, the key compliance obligation is to inform the Registrar of any new relevant information as defined in clause 11. This includes if they are suspected, charged, convicted, or found guilty of an NDIS-relevant offence. The Act likely imposes a duty to notify (section 46 of the Act requires the Registrar to review registration on becoming aware of new relevant information; the registered person should not wait for the Registrar to discover it independently). Failure to notify could itself be an offence or lead to cancellation. The person should also keep records of any changes in circumstances that could be relevant to an additional risk assessment, such as completion of rehabilitation programs or positive employment history.

For providers and employers, compliance requires due diligence. Before engaging a worker in NDIS endorsed activity, the provider should verify that the worker holds current Tasmanian registration in the NDIS endorsed category. They should also monitor the national NDIS worker screening database if they are a registered NDIS provider. If a worker is issued a negative notice, the provider must not allow that worker to continue in the role. The provider should have policies in place for handling employees who are subject to risk assessments - for example, offering alternative duties that do not involve direct contact with vulnerable people, pending the outcome. The provider should also ensure that their human resources practices do not inadvertently discriminate on the basis of a criminal record that has been lawfully considered by the Registrar, but should be aware that using a negative notice as a basis for dismissal may still expose them to unfair dismissal claims if the decision is not properly documented and linked to the inherent requirements of the role.

For the Registrar, compliance means following the procedural requirements in the Order: considering the listed matters, not taking into account conduct that is no longer an offence (clause 7), allowing submissions under clause 8, and applying the mandatory negative notice provisions strictly unless satisfied of exceptional circumstances. The Registrar should maintain a written record of reasons for decisions, especially for findings on exceptional circumstances, to withstand potential review. The Registrar should also stay abreast of amendments to the Commonwealth NDIS rules and manuals that are incorporated by reference.