The Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme published the following Progress Report Click here to view Progress Report on general issues around the implementation and performance of the NDIS. The report includes the following references to ARATA
3.29 The Australian Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Association (ARATA) concurred, commenting that many professions that under currently operating under AHPRA, require to also be regulated by the Commission, with the potential to impact negatively on the provision of services:
[T]he regulatory overlay that the new NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission has put onto a number of professions that are already registered professions, that are operating under AHPRA, is so significantly burdensome that NDIS participants are losing a really skilled workforce…29 Committee view
3.30 The committee has welcomed the establishment of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission which has the capacity to bring national consistency to the delivery of disability services, while providing the necessary safeguards for those in receipt of services.
3.31 In previous discussions with the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner the committee was assured that the regulatory burden on providers would be commensurate with the risks associated with the delivery of services, and proportionate to the size and structure of those providing services. However the committee reports from mainly therapists, although other groups also expressed concerns, that the imposts that regulatory costs imposed by NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission were excessive and placed a significant financial burden on small providers.
3.32 Furthermore, the committee heard that many if not all of these small providers are already regulated either through AHPRA, and/or through their professionals associations.
3.33 The committee acknowledges that the purpose of the Commission is to provide regulatory certainty and consistency to the sector, and safeguard recipients of the disability services, however this must be done is an appropriate and proportionate way. The dual impact of high costs and duplication of regulation are reportedly acting as a disincentive to many professionals and small organisations who are desperately needed for the NDIS to function.
(page 62)In support of Recommendation 17
3.34 The committee recommends that the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission urgently review the impact of its regulatory requirements on sole providers and small to medium sized businesses providing disability services and report to the parliament on its findings.