Institutional trust flies out the window when your support network is nothing but a poker chip in a political card game.
At first blush this week’s big news – the delay of the NDIS reform legislation and associated Senate inquiry – would seem to be nothing but good news for the disability community.
Eight more weeks of scrutiny, the opportunity for more consultation, more chances to tweak and amend and advocate for improvements – sounds like a win, right?
But here are some hard truths.
Submissions to the Senate inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 are officially closed. If community members and DROs haven’t already had their say, at least on paper, then that chance has gone.
Given that almost 5000 submissions were received, and there are still only 1582 – as of last night – that had been uploaded to the inquiry’s website, it’s a fair bet the Committee’s time will be filled with reading the other 3500-odd and uploading them.
Will there be further public hearings? There’s been no word on that, and there are no clues on the website.
You know what is up on the website? The Committee’s interim report, which recommends the bill be passed, subject to agreement to three recommendations:
- The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing table a roadmap accompanying the legislation that sets out the timeline and consultation requirements for all reforms included in the bill and the NDIS Reforms package announced in the 2026-27 Budget.
- The federal government amends the Explanatory Memorandum to include further clarification, “similar to evidence provided in the Agency’s submission and Questions on Notices”, in relation to:
- how the proposed test for permanence will be applied while having regard to individual choice and autonomy;
- the extent of consultation that will be undertaken in advance of implementation, particularly in relation to the functional capacity assessment tool;
- the safeguards that will apply in relation to the use of technology to automate administrative actions;
- the mechanism through which the Minister must have regard to the safety of participants when making a support determination, including safeguards and monitoring;
- the critical supports which will not be impacted through the proposed reduction to social, civic and community participation and capacity building support budgets;
- how the impact of reforms on thin markets, including in regional, rural and remote areas will be monitored to ensure any unintended consequences are minimised; and
- how employment support budgets will be preserved from the proposed support determination in relation to the SCCP.
- That state and territory governments fulfil their commitments under the National Cabinet agreement to support the long-term sustainability of the NDIS, including through the delivery of the jointly agreed $10 billion investment in foundational supports outside of the Scheme.
The fact the recommendation is to pass the bill despite about 1500 negative submissions and three days of some of the most confronting evidence I’ve ever seen in a senate inquiry should come as no surprise.
After all, the eight-week delay is the direct result of none of that. It is the result of a cold, steely-eyed, purely political quid pro quo between the Labor government and the Australian Greens and independent MPs.
Nothing the disability community and its advocates have said has moved the government one iota.
What moved it was political expediency – the need to pass two bills that were the cornerstone of the federal government’s budget – reducing the capital gains tax discount for future investment property purchases, and restricting negative gearing so it generally applies only to newly built investment properties purchased after the commencement date.
Federal health minister Mark Butler stood in the back of PM Anthony Albanese’s press conference on Tuesday. I’d like to say he looked distraught and angry, but he’s too professional a politician for that.
He said in that press conference what he said before and again since – the reforms in the bill are the right ones for the NDIS and that if there is to be any tweaking, it will be “around the edges”.
Related
The message for the disability community
Whether people support or oppose the legislation has become almost secondary.
The message many NDIS participants are likely to have heard from all this political football is that the process itself is negotiable.
That’s a trust issue, not a political issue.
I’ve written before about the fear NDIS participants have shown and shared during the inquiry. I talked about the lack of trust participants have in the government – any government, regardless of stripe.
This is about institutional trust. If a government wants people to believe that it is listening, then the process has to look like listening.
If the process can be traded as part of another negotiation – even if it results in more scrutiny rather than less – that inevitably changes how some people perceive it.
The extension of the inquiry itself may be welcomed by advocates, but the fact it emerged from an unrelated political bargain rather than the merits of the inquiry is what raises the broader question about trust.
I’d like to be optimistic about the future of this bill. I’d like to believe the government will listen to everything said by participants and advocates – really listen, not just look like listening. I’d like to trust that what will result will be reforms that actually improve the NDIS and don’t just save money.
But so far all I’m seeing is a football, waiting to be kicked further down the road in the service of budget measures that the government believes will win the votes of more Australians than the 774,456 NDIS participants.
Imagine what those participants are seeing.
Good luck winning that trust back, Mr Butler. Best start now, I reckon.