Consultation on the draft lists of NDIS supports: full report
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Consultation on the draft lists of NDIS supports: full report | 559.23 KB |
| Consultation on the draft lists of NDIS supports: feedback summary | 302.5 KB |
The report details feedback received during public consultation on proposed changes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, specifically, on the way that supports and services funded by the NDIS are defined. The report summarises the feedback and notes changes made in response.
Overall, feedback suggests that the list approach to supports and services is too broad and too prescriptive. Respondents expressed concerns that by limiting NDIS recipients' choice and control, the changes could result in debts being incurred by participants, especially if the changes were not communicated clearly and effectively.
A number of recurring and overarching themes were raised throughout public consultation. These included:
- a preference for a principles-based approach over a list-based approach
- the need for flexibility
- proposed ‘carve outs’ create confusion and a lack of clarity
- the need for an exemption (or exceptions) process to accompany the lists
- ensuring general and standard products are accessible to participants, alongside specialist disability products
- the exclusion of mainstream mental health supports is likely to exacerbate existing misperceptions regarding the interface between psychosocial supports and mental health systems
- concern about participants unknowingly purchasing something that NDIS funding cannot be used for, resulting in debts being owed
- the need for time to understand what the new definition of NDIS Supports means for participants without the risk of incurring a debt, and
- the understanding that the whole of disability supports needs to be considered together.
Respondents also provided feedback on the consultation process, finding that the timeframe was inadequate and inconsistent with the principles of community engagement and expressing concerns about the accessibility of the process overall.
