Not-for-profit insights

The Australian Institute of Company Directors has updated A Director’s Guide to AI Governance and provided a summary and checklist for NFPs.

AI gives organisations the chance to enhance productivity, improve decision-making, and deliver innovative products and services.

Yet it also introduces complex and often interconnected risks, including in cyber-security and data governance. Boards play key roles in governing the balance between opportunity and risk.

The AIDC’s updated resources aim to equip boards with the insight needed to navigate AI with confidence, promoting innovation by using AI in a responsible manner, including oversight of its impact on employees, customers, and broader stakeholders.

President of Erina Rugby League Football James Savage has been banned from office for 12 months and fined $1100 over conflicts of interest relating to companies he owned that did building works at a registered club.

Mr Savage was required to pay $31,147 for costs incurred in the investigation.

The NSW Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority investigated Mr Savage after a complaint was made about invoices totalling $80,870 and dating from 9 October 2022 to 8 January 2023 that were paid to SavBuilt Pty Ltd and Master of all Handyman Services, businesses owned by Mr Savage. No tenders or quotes were provided to the club’s board for approval.

A $90,000 quote from SavBuilt and JDS Building Services, another company owned by Mr Savage, to construct a deck at the club in 2017 was submitted for approval but the final cost of the project was more than $450,000.

ILGA found that Mr Savage had failed to record conflicts of interest and should have been aware and disclosed the conflict of using his companies for works at the club. He also failed to obtain competitive quotes and follow tender processes.

L&GNSW executive director regulatory operations Dimitri Argeres said: ‘Clubs play an important role in the community and secretaries and board members are responsible for members funds and for the behaviour of their staff and colleagues.

‘Registered clubs can strengthen governance by regularly reviewing compliance with the Registered Clubs Accountability Code, identifying high-risk areas, such as cash, gaming, procurement, and tender processes, implementing risk management frameworks, and establishing periodic internal or external audits.’

Charities and not-for-profits are being invited to join an online community to provide tailored cyber-support for the sector. The ACNC is partnering with the Department of Home Affairs on a project that will establish a Not-for-Profit Cyber Uplift Community of Practice.

It aims to help strengthen cyber-resilience through collaboration, shared knowledge, and practical guidance. Membership is free and open to NFPs. The community welcomes volunteers, operational staff, board members, and executives.

Members will gain access to:

• Webinars and information sessions
• Access to a dedicated digital channel for government and cross-sector engagement
• Updates and cyber alerts tailored to NFPs
• Advice from cyber experts to reduce risks to your organisation
• Incident response and threat briefings
• Case studies and lessons learned from cyber incidents, and
• Tools and policy developments.

ACNC Commissioner Sue Woodward said cyber security was a risk for all organisations.

‘Charities and other not-for-profits, whether small or large, hold a significant amount of sensitive personal data. This includes the names of donors, members, volunteers, staff, and the people who use their services’, she said.

‘It’s important to be mindful of how to minimise the risks of that data being taken and misused if there is an attack on your computer systems.

‘The community of practice will make it easier for organisations to strengthen their cyber-security, through opportunities to learn more about practices that strengthen governance and minimise risks.’

Join the community by completing Become a member of the Not-for-Profit Cyber Uplift Community of Practice form at homeaffairs.gov.au website.

Disability services provider Yooralla has entered an enforceable undertaking with the Fair Work Ombudsman after rectifying $2.05 million in underpayments, including interest and superannuation, to more than 1300 underpaid staff.

Yooralla first became aware of the issues when it received a query from a casual employee about whether he or she was receiving correct shift-loading.

It prompted Yooralla to conduct a comprehensive review, including engaging an external consultant, which led to the organisation’s self-reporting its non-compliance in 2024 to the Fair Work Ombudsman.

Yooralla workers missed out on entitlements such as casual shift-loadings and overtime rates they were entitled to under enterprise agreements. Other underpaid entitlements included penalty rates for broken shifts spanning more than 12 hours and a higher ‘duties’ allowance for high-intensity support work.

The underpayments were the result of Yooralla’s failing to ensure that it understood entitlements payable under agreements and poor governance, including not ensuring its payroll system included applicable pay rates and entitlements.

Limitations with the payroll system Yooralla implemented also led to the organisation often failing to identify when employees had worked shifts that attracted penalty rates.

FWO Anna Booth said: ‘The matter serves as a warning of the significant long-running problems that can result from an employer not prioritising compliance with minimum pay laws.

‘There are too many organisations that are placing far too low a priority on ensuring their payroll systems are compliant and that they have a system in place to regularly check they are providing their employees with all lawful minimum entitlements.

‘Employers should also be aware that improving compliance in the disability support services sector is a priority for the Fair Work Ombudsman.’

Under the EU, Yooralla has committed to a range of compliance measures, including:

• Completing a comprehensive review of its workplace compliance and back-paying any amounts owed
• Commissioning an independent audit of its workplace compliance and rectifying any issues identified
• Reporting to the FWO on improvements to its payroll systems to prevent future underpayments
• Operating a hotline for employees to raise questions about their pay and entitlements
• Strengthening consultation through its joint consultative committee with employees and union representatives, regular updates provided to the regulator, and
• Informing staff about the EU through direct communication and internal channels.

The FWO is conducting a national Disability Support Services Sector Inquiry that will investigate why there is non-compliance with workplace laws.

Goodwin Aged Care Services Ltd has signed an enforceable undertaking with the FWO after underpaying 335 employees. Back-payments, including interest and superannuation have totalled more than $1.39 million.

A registered charity that provides retirement living, residential aged care, home care and allied health services, Goodwin self-reported underpayments to the FWO in July 2024.

The employees were underpaid between July 2018 and March 2025. Underpayments for early-afternoon shifts worsened during COVID, when staff worked the shift more than usual.

An internal audit of the company’s compliance found that individual flexibility arrangements for 313 employees did not meet the better-off-overall test and were over-reliant on non-monetary benefits. An IFA must leave employees better off overall when compared with their awards or registered agreements.

Incorrect payroll-system configuration meant an additional 22 residential-care employees had not been paid owed penalty rates for early-afternoon shifts.

Ms Booth said: ‘The FWO repeats its call to all aged-care providers to check their compliance, and to do what Goodwin now has in making sure their payroll systems are fit-for-purpose and that staff are being properly trained to ensure hard-working employees are paid every dollar they’re entitled to.

‘We urge aged-care providers to invest in their systems and to undertake their own, regular wage compliance audits, including of IFAs and enterprise agreements – otherwise they potentially face big back-payment bills.’

Under the terms of the EU, Goodwin must engage an auditor to verify its compliance with workplace laws and make sure that its board takes actions to rectify any issues and provide relevant documentation to the FWO.

The organisation must maintain communication with workers, including via its workplace consultative committee, and put a notice on its website about the underpayments.

The FWO is auditing 30 aged-care providers to test compliance with the Fair Work Act for cleaning and catering employees. The regulator will look at payslips, record-keeping, and pay rates. Investigations continue.

The FWO has recovered more than $5.3 million for nearly 3600 underpaid direct-care employees working for aged-care businesses.

The FWO found that of 22 businesses providing residential aged care and home care it investigated, 13 were non-compliant with workplace laws in one or more areas. Eight were compliant and one business remains under investigation.

All 13 non-compliant providers had underpaid employees, six of them back-paying 2338 employees more than $2.17 million and seven back-paying 1253 employees more than $3.13 million.

The back-payments came after the FWO issued a total of 16 compliance notices. Two residential-care providers also paid a combined $4620 in fines for record-keeping and payslip breaches.

The most common contraventions involved underpayment of minimum pay rates, underpayment or non-payment of broken shift entitlements, non-payment for minimum engagement periods, and underpayment of overtime.

Other contraventions involved breaching record-keeping and payslip requirements and failing to provide a fair-work information statement to employees. One provider also advertised below-minimum rates of pay.

Anna Booth said: ‘Aged-care providers need to make sure their payroll systems are fit-for-purpose and payroll staff are properly trained to make sure employees are paid for every dollar they’re entitled to.

‘The FWO calls upon aged-care providers to invest in strengthening their payroll and rostering systems and to undertake their own, regular wage compliance audits – or potentially face big back-pay bills.

‘The leading causes of breaches were the incorrect classification of employees, calculation of overtime, application of broken shifts, and payment of minimum engagement periods. Small errors in isolation can be costly across a large workforce. Improved payroll and rostering practices and a greater compliance focus can avoid these issues.

‘We’d like to see this proactive audit approach replicated across the aged-care sector.’

The FWO has begun inspections and investigations of 30 employers’ compliance in relation to cleaning and catering employees in aged care. It will look at payslips, record-keeping, and pay rates.

General manager of Seven Hills RSL Joseph Bayssari has been banned from holding office in NSW registered clubs for five years.

A Liquor & Gaming NSW investigation found that Mr Bayssari received more than $280,000 in undisclosed cash from a club contractor.

L&GNSW received a complaint about Mr Bayssari that raised serious bribery and corruption allegations. It alleged that he had received cash payments, accepted free food and other gifts, and failed to disclose a contractor’s gifts.

Subsequent investigations uncovered extensive governance failures, including undisclosed cash payments, gifts, benefits, and conflicts of interest.

The NSW Independent Liquor & Gaming Authority found that Mr Bayssari had ‘behaved dishonestly’, engaged in ‘systematic misconduct’, and acted contrary to the best interests of the club over a four-and-a-half-year period.

It found that he had received $35,000 without a legitimate explanation and accepted regular payments of $2000 from a club supplier between 2018 and 2022 totalling $280,000.

ILGA found that the conduct seriously undermined the governance, accountability, and management of the club and determined that Mr Bayssari was not a fit and proper person to hold office in a registered club.

L&GNSW executive director regulatory operations Dimitri Argeres said the outcome sent a strong message to registered clubs.

‘Club officials are entrusted to act in the best interests of their members and uphold the highest standards of integrity and accountability’, he said.

ILGA has declared Mr Bayssari ineligible for five years to stand for election, be appointed to, or hold office as a secretary or member of the governing body of any registered club in NSW. It also imposed the maximum monetary penalty of $11,000 and ordered him to pay L&GNSW’s investigation costs of $7811.

A man is facing more than 300 charges as part of a police investigation into reports of suspected fraud (procurement) concerning Geelong-based genU, a not-for-profit disability, employment, and aged-care-services organisation.

Detectives from Victoria’s Financial Crime Squad have charged a 59-year-old from Williamstown with 309 counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception. They allege that the fraud amount is more than $10 million.

In February 2023, genU reported suspected fraud to Victoria Police following an internal investigation into suspicious financial activity involving accounts that were allegedly wrongfully charged to the not-for-profit organisation.

The alleged fraudulent activity is understood to have occurred over a five-year period between 2015 and 2021.

As soon as the suspected fraud was identified, genU said that it had implemented additional controls and safeguards to strengthen its systems and reduce the risk of similar conduct occurring in the future.

Alongside the police investigation, genU has undertaken civil legal proceedings against those alleged to be involved and is seeking to recover as much of the misappropriated funds as possible.

The Australian Securities & Investments Commission has urged directors, preparers of financial reports and auditors to assess the impact of uncertain market and economic conditions.

Financial-report disclosures about uncertainties are vital for users, the commission stressed.

The focus areas highlight elements of financial reports and audits where ASIC has identified the most significant and common instances of non-compliance with Australian accounting standards or issues with past audits.

Key findings in ASIC’s report 774 Annual financial reporting and audit surveillance report 2022–23 included:

• Impairment and asset values
• Provisions
• Events occurring after year-end and before completing a financial report
• Disclosures in the financial report, and
• The effect of a new accounting standard for insurers.

Disclosures in the financial report about uncertainties, key assumptions, and sensitivity analysis were important to investors, the commission said.

Uncertainties may lead to a wider range of judgements on asset values and other estimates. They might change from time to time, and documenting and updating information supporting judgements was expected.

Directors and management should assess how an entity’s current and future performance, the value of its assets and provisions, and business strategies might be affected by changing circumstances, uncertainties, and risks.

ASIC commissioner Kate O’Rourke said, ‘Directors should ensure that company financial reports provide investors with useful and meaningful information on the impact of changing and uncertain economic and market conditions and other developments on their company’s financial position and future performance.

‘Directors should ensure there are adequate resources, skills, and expertise applied to promote quality in the reporting process so that assumptions underlying estimates and assessments for financial reporting purposes are reasonable and supportable.’

See below and the following page for details of ASIC focus areas for 31 December reporting modified for NFPs.

Asset values – impairment of non-financial assets

• Goodwill, indefinite useful life intangible assets and intangible assets not yet available for use must be tested annually for impairment.
• Entities adversely impacted in the current environment may have new or continuing indicators of impairment that require testing for other non-financial assets.
• The appropriateness of key assumptions supporting the recoverable amount of non-financial assets.
• The valuation method used for impairment testing should be appropriate, use reasonable and supportable assumptions, and be cross-checked for reliability using other relevant methods.
• Disclosure of estimation uncertainties, changing key assumptions, and sensitivity analysis or information on probability-weighted scenarios.

Asset values – property assets

Factors that could adversely affect commercial and retail property values should be considered such as changes in office space requirements of tenants, on-line shopping trends, future economic or industry impacts on tenants, and the financial condition of tenants.

The lease-accounting requirements and the impairment of lessee right-of-use assets.

Asset values – expected credit losses on loans and receivables

Whether key assumptions used in determining expected credit losses are reasonable and supportable.

Any need for more reliable and up-to-date information about the circumstances of borrowers and debtors.

Short-term liquidity issues, financial condition and earning capacity of borrowers and debtors.

Ensuring the accuracy of ageing of receivables.

Using forward-looking assumptions and not assuming recent debts will all be collectible.

The extent to which history of credit losses remains relevant in assessing expected credit losses.

Whether possible future losses have been adequately factored in, using probability-weighted scenarios, as necessary.

Disclosure of estimation uncertainties and key assumptions.

Asset values – financial asset classification

Financial assets are appropriately measured at amortised cost, fair value through other comprehensive income or fair value through profit and loss.
Criteria for using amortised cost include whether both:

• Assets are held in a business model whose objective is to hold the assets to collect contractual cash flows, and
• Contractual terms give rise on specific dates to cash flows that are solely payments of principal and interest on the principal outstanding.

Value of other assets

The net realisable value of inventories, including whether all estimated costs of completion and necessary to make the sale have been considered in determining net realisable value.

The value of investments in unlisted entities.

Provisions

The need for and adequacy of provisions for matters such as onerous contracts, leased property make-good, financial guarantees given and restructuring.

Subsequent events

Events occurring after year-end and before completing the financial report should be reviewed as to whether they affect assets, liabilities, income, and expenses at year-end or relate to new conditions requiring disclosure.

Disclosure – general considerations

When considering the information that should be disclosed in the financial report, directors and preparers should put themselves in the shoes of investors/users and consider what information they would want to know.

Disclosures should be specific to the circumstances of the entity and its businesses, assets, financial position, and performance.

Changes from the previous period should be considered and disclosed.

Disclosures in the financial report

Uncertainties may lead to a wider range of valid judgements on asset values and estimates. The financial report should disclose uncertainties, changing key assumptions, and sensitivities. This will assist investors/users in understanding the approach taken, understanding potential future impacts, and making comparisons among entities.

Entities should also explain where uncertainties have changed since the previous full-year.

The appropriate classification of assets and liabilities between current and non-current categories on the statement of financial position should be considered. That might have regard to matters such as maturity dates, payment terms, and compliance with debt covenants.

Other matters

Consideration of whether off-balance-sheet exposures should be recognised on the statement of financial position, such as interests in non-consolidated entities.

ASIC has emphasised that directors were primarily responsible for the quality of a financial report.

This included ensuring that management produced quality and timely financial information for audit that was supported by robust position papers with appropriate analysis and conclusions referencing relevant accounting standards.

Companies must have appropriate processes, records, and analysis to support information, the commission stressed.

Appropriate experience and expertise should be applied to reporting and auditing, particularly in more difficult and complex areas such as asset values, provisions, and other estimates.

The circumstances in which judgements on accounting estimates and forward-looking information were made and their bases should be properly documented and disclosed when appropriate.

Audit fees should be reasonable and have regard to increased auditors’ costs and the extra effort required in judgement areas.

The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission has announced its 2026-27 ‘regulatory’ focus to support charities to strengthen their governing documents and better understand how to manage relationships with partners.

A charity’s governing document – also known as a constitution, rules, or trust deed – is foundational to good governance as it helps give certainty about how a charity is run and established procedures that everyone involved with the organisation can rely on. The governing document binds the responsible people, the charity and its members, and needs to reflect accurately how the charity operates.

If the governing document is unclear, incorrect, inconsistent with a charity’s activities, or not followed, it cannot be relied on when there is uncertainty or conflict … when it is needed most. Outdated governing documents can also lead to legal, governance and operational risks, including whether an organisation remains eligible for ongoing registration as a charity.

Charities are encouraged to review their governing documents to make sure they reflect purpose and activities.

Many charities work with partners or third parties on fundraising, services, and programs. Charities need to understand and manage associated risks and obligations.

Charities should conduct appropriate due diligence before entering a partnership and consider details carefully before establishing an agreement.

This includes considering the potential benefits of the partnership, any risks and conflicts of interest that might arise, how risks would be managed, whether the board supported the partnership, and the alignment with the charity of values, work, and aims of the prospective partner.

Charities need to ensure that a relationship is clearly documented, and there is a process for monitoring, evaluating, and ending it.

The ACNC is encouraging charities to exercise caution if they are offered barter-credit donations.

Barter credits are a type of alternative currency used in some business networks. Unlike cash, they generally cannot be converted into money and may be used only to obtain specific goods or services through a barter exchange.

The Australian Taxation Office has warned about schemes involving barter credits that might affect charities endorsed as deductible-gift recipients.

The schemes typically involve someone’s receiving barter credits with a much higher face value than what they paid for them. The credits are then donated to a DGR, and the donor claims a much larger tax deduction – based on the inflated face value of the credits – than they would have been entitled to.

This could result in the donor needing to pay back the tax and other serious consequences.

Charities receiving barter credits will be aware that they are receiving a donation in non-standard currency but might not be aware that they are being involved in a tax scheme.

While charities are not prohibited from accepting barter credits as donations, it is important to consider whether the credits will provide a genuine benefit and whether they can realistically be used at fair-market value for charitable purposes.

They should consider:

• What goods or services can the credits be used for?
• Where and how can they be used to further a charitable purpose?
• Are there conditions, restrictions, or fees associated with using them?
• Does the stated value reflect what a charity could realistically obtain using the credits? and
• Will accepting and managing the credits create additional administrative work?

If a charity accepts barter credits but does not use them to further its charitable purpose, it may be at risk of being viewed as a vehicle for providing tax deductions to individuals or organisations seeking to avoid paying income tax.

The ATO has advised that donors who participate in these schemes, or the people who promote them, may face penalties. The tax office officially advises wariness.

The ACNC has released a major update to its commissioner’s interpretation statement on housing aimed at providing charities and their professional advisers with greater clarity on a range of contemporary housing models, funding approaches, and charity-law principles.

Community housing provides clarity around how the ACNC applies the law – and decides what is and isn’t charitable – when assessing community-housing charities.

The statement includes expanded guidance, with new sections on social, affordable, and key-worker housing, mixed-tenure developments, and multi-party special-purpose vehicles.

It also contains more extensive guidance on issues such as poverty, distress, and disadvantage and how they relate to the charitable provision of community housing as well as providing greater clarity on commercial activities and financing arrangements.

Relevant legal cases and practical case studies illustrate important points.

The ACNC has published four new summaries of decisions to provide insights into how the commission assesses applications for charity registration.

They focus on:

• The need to ensure that adequate safeguarding measures are in place when an organisation works with vulnerable beneficiaries
• When registering for the subtype ‘advancing public debate’, ensuring that the activities conducted further charitable purposes
• The type of historical documentation required to have a charity registration application backdated, and
• Eligibility of organisations that also conduct commercial activities to become charities and the responsibility they have in ensuring that they maintain and further charitable purposes.

With the Victorian state election coming up in November and its NSW counterpart following in March, charities may be considering how they can contribute to public debate and advocate for the communities and causes they represent.

A charity can advocate for or against a change in law, policy, and practice when doing so furthers its charitable purpose. However, charities must remain independent from partisan politics – a charity cannot have a purpose of promoting or opposing a political party.

As elections approach, charities should make sure that they have clear procedures, checks, and approval processes in place for public statements, campaign materials, social-media content, and other advocacy activities.

Charities undertaking election-related advocacy should also be aware that electoral laws differ according to jurisdictions and may impose unexpected requirements.

ACNC guidance Charities, campaigning and advocacy explains what charities can and cannot do when advocating and campaigning, including during election periods.

The Treasury has released an exposure draft of proposed regulations – Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Amendment (Disclosure of Revocation Summaries and Recognised Assessment Activity Summaries) Regulations 2026.

The regulations will allow the ACNC to share more information about how it monitors charities, making its actions more open and easier for the public to understand.

The commission sometimes cancels a charity’s registration. Under new regulations, it will be required to explain why it made the decision.

If the ACNC takes enforcement action against a charity, it must give the reasons why.

Some ACNC investigations do not lead to enforcement action. The ACNC will be able to release information about these investigations when it is in the public interest. Using a test, the commission will decide if ‘public interest’ should result in disclosure.

The ACNC’s 2026 Annual Information Statement for charities that report the financial year ending 30 June is out now on the commission’s charity portal. While these charities need to submit their AIS by 31 January 2027, the ACNC encourages them to report earlier.

The commission has launched its 2026 AIS hub, which includes:

• A checklist outlining what to do before you start and information, you’ll need to have at hand
• A video taking you step-by-step through the AIS so you can see each question before you start, and
• A detailed guide covering all the questions, with practical examples and information.

The AIS collects important information about charities’ activities, programs, and finances, much of it published on the charity register. The register receives millions of visits each year from potential donors, volunteers, and grant-makers, so it is important that details are accurate and up-to-date.

Information about charity programs also helps demonstrate the vital work that charities do across Australia and overseas in areas such as education, health, environment, social services, and the arts.

Parliament has passed the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026.

Several measures in the legislation build on significant NDIS work to strengthen the government’s regulatory approach and ability to prevent and reduce harm by holding providers and workers to account.

The act includes:

• New offences for providing false or misleading information and intentionally destroying records to defraud the NDIS
• New offences for providers offering kickbacks and inducements, and
• Stronger protections for whistleblowers who report wrongdoing.

The NDIS Commission will work closely across government, including the National Disability Insurance Agency and Department of Health, Disability and Ageing on several measures, such as provider-definition changes, new fraud offences, and planned management-provider reforms.

The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission has written to more than 285,000 unregistered NDIS providers, reminding them of their obligations under the code of conduct and significant penalties that apply for non-compliance.

Commissioner Loise Glanville said that while NDIS legislation allows some providers to operate unregistered, all providers must comply with the code.

‘If you or your business claim funds from a NDIS plan to deliver supports or services, the NDIS [code] applies to you – whether or not you choose to register with the commission’, Ms Glanville said.

‘The code sets minimum standards for behaviour when delivering NDIS supports, including acting with integrity, respecting the rights of people with disability, and providing services safely and competently.

‘The NDIS Commission regulates both registered and unregistered providers and we will take action against providers that breach the code.’

As the independent national regulator of NDIS providers and workers, the commission has significant compliance and enforcement powers to issue fines, bans, and pursue civil penalties in the Federal Court. It also educates providers and workers to understand good practice and their legal obligations and works to build their capabilities.

Associate commissioner Natalie Wade said surveillance of unregistered providers is a commission priority.

‘People with disability have the right to safe, respectful, and high-quality supports’, said Ms Wade.

‘The [code] exists to protect those rights and set clear expectations for anyone delivering NDIS supports and services.

‘Any participant concerned that their provider may be breaching the code is encouraged to make a complaint to their provider and to the NDIS Commission.’

The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission has begun legal action in the Federal Court against Amicus Community Services Ltd and a former support worker following the death of NDIS participant Joanne Keogh.

The NDIS Commission alleges that between September 2020 and May 2021, Amicus failed to ensure that its support workers had the necessary qualifications, training, and experience to support properly Ms Keogh, and on many occasions failed to support her, placing her at a significant risk of harm.

On 6 May 2021, Ms Keogh suffered an epileptic seizure, fell from her bed, and stopped breathing. It is alleged that Georgina Knox, her support worker, failed to respond to an alarm triggered by her seizure and fall, and failed to check on her at least hourly during the night. Ms Keogh was discovered unresponsive by another support worker some eight hours later.

The NDIS Commission is seeking financial penalties against Amicus for several breaches of the NDIS’s practice standards and against Ms Knox for a failure to comply with her obligation under the NDIS code to support Ms Keogh in a safe and competent manner.

The commission permanently banned Ms Knox from being involved in the provision of supports or services to NDIS participants. Given the gravity of Ms Knox’s alleged failings on the night of Ms Keogh’s death, the commission has sought to include Ms Knox as a defendant in the proceeding.

‘NDIS providers and their employees who fail to meet their obligations and put NDIS participants at risk can expect strong regulatory action’, acting NDIS commissioner Natalie Wade said.

The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission has launched an investigation into a support-at-home provider following a prudential review that identified possible breaches of pricing and consumer-protection requirements.

Conducted between January and June, the review examined 25 support-at-home providers assessed as ‘higher risk’ based on their compliance histories. It considered pricing transparency, service agreements, financial reporting, and prudential management.

One provider is under formal investigation after the commission found evidence that it might have:

• Included care-management costs in service-delivery prices
• Made price changes without first discussing and agreeing to the changes with older people, and
• Failed to provide requested information and documentation to the commission.

Commissioner Liz Hefren-Webb said: ‘The rules are clear. Providers cannot include care-management costs in service prices and must not implement price changes until they have been discussed and agreed with people.’

The review findings identified common issues across the providers, including inaccurate pricing information, outdated service agreements, late financial reporting, and weaknesses in governance.

In addition to the provider under investigation, four providers were fully compliant, 18 resolved identified issues through engagement with the commission, and two remain under close supervision.

The review also identified examples of good practice, including strong governance, effective monitoring, and approaches that place older people at the centre of decision-making.

The commission will continue to monitor support-at-home providers.

The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing is updating the way it monitors care minutes.

As part of their financial reports, residential aged-care providers are required to submit to the department an audited care minutes performance statement. The CMPS includes direct-care-labour worked hours, direct-care-labour costs, registered-nurse coverage percentage, and quarterly occupied beds.

Only a registered company auditor or otherwise approved by the department in line with section 166-335 of the rules, can be engaged by a registered provider to audit the CMPS for the home or homes they operate. The audit must be conducted under the assurance standard ASAE 3000 Assurance Engagements Other than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information.

The department may recalculate care-minute supplements paid to aged-care homes if the CMPS submission is different from information reported in past quarterly financial reports.

The Aged Care Commission began in September a prudential review of selected Category 6 residential-aged-care providers.

It hopes to understand their financial and prudential governance and management practices, liquidity and investment management, and refundable-deposit practices.

A prudential review helps to educate providers about their financial and prudential responsibilities and assess compliance with financial and prudential standards and other prudential obligations that apply.

It will review policies and procedures for financial governance and management and the management of refundable deposits.

If the review uncovers non-compliance, the commission aims to work with organisations to resolve them. After the review, findings and areas for improvement will be shared with providers.

Find out more about reviews on the agedcarequality.gov.au website.