Federal Health Minister Mark Butler has brushed aside an unprecedented wave of opposition to Labor’s National Disability Insurance Scheme reforms, accusing state and territory ministers of political theatre and signalling the government has little intention of substantially rewriting its legislation before parliament rises on 2 July.
The response has done little to quell the alarm coming from almost every corner of the disability sector, or from the state governments that would be left to pick up the pieces if the reforms proceed as planned.
A three-day Senate inquiry into the proposed changes heard from almost every witness who appeared calling for the legislation to be amended or abandoned in its current form. At the heart of the dispute is the federal government’s plan to remove or divert an estimated 350,000 people from the NDIS by 2031, as part of a drive to cut $38 billion from projected scheme spending, with a further 110,000 Australians who had expected to enter the scheme to be redirected to other programmes, bringing the total affected to roughly 460,000 people.
The three days of hearings and just eleven days allowed for written submissions drew immediate criticism as wholly inadequate for a bill of such scale. The inquiry received more than 4,000 submissions, though only a fraction had been published by the time witnesses gave evidence.
States united in rare cross-partisan revolt
The most politically striking development came when disability ministers from every state and territory, spanning both Labor and Coalition governments, submitted a joint statement to the inquiry warning they were not equipped to absorb the people the federal government intends to remove from the scheme.
In their joint submission, the ministers warned of a “significant risk” that people with disability would end up in hospitals or other inappropriate settings, or have no access to services at all, if the legislation passed in its current form.
They argued the pace of reform, focused heavily on cutting spending without a clearly defined support ecosystem, risked fragmenting service delivery and undermining the original intent of the NDIS.
Victoria’s disability minister Lizzie Blandthorn said the legislation had gone further than any agreed position between governments, noting Victoria alone contributes $3 billion a year to the scheme and that all states and territories should remain co-governors of it.
It is a remarkable political moment. Labor governs in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and the ACT. That its own state colleagues joined with Coalition-governed jurisdictions to publicly declare the federal government’s timetable unworkable is not something that can be easily dismissed as partisan opposition.
Butler, however, was quick to try. Appearing on the ABC on Sunday, he described the joint ministerial submission as “extraordinary” given that premiers had signed on to clear commitments just months earlier, in exchange for the Commonwealth making $25 billion in additional hospital funding available. He called it “posturing” and said he did not know what the states were trying to achieve.
The minister’s framing sidesteps the substance of the states’ concerns. Their submission did not dispute the goal of fiscal sustainability; it warned, plainly and in detail, that the alternative support systems needed to catch people leaving the NDIS simply do not exist yet.
The ministers wrote that without a careful, coordinated approach, there was a significant risk people with disability would end up in hospitals or other inappropriate settings, or have no access to services at all, and that states and territories had made no agreement to deliver equivalent services to people exited from the scheme.
What the inquiry heard
The evidence given during the three-day hearing was, at times, harrowing. Witnesses described a system already causing harm before the new legislation has even passed.
A man with spina bifida testified he had been told he would receive only half the incontinence products he requires and was advised to approach companies for free samples.
He described being present at a planning meeting only to find decisions had already been made on his behalf. A disability advocate read statements from two witnesses too distressed to speak for themselves.
Disability Advocacy Network Australia chief executive Emma Bennison told the inquiry she had never experienced the kinds of conversations about disability that had emerged in recent weeks, touching on people’s worth, contribution and futures. She was old enough to remember life before the NDIS, she said, and had no desire to return to it.
Safety concerns were raised repeatedly. Australia’s disability discrimination commissioner, Rosemary Kayess, warned that if passed, the legislation would leave people in unsafe situations, pointing to four and a half years of evidence given to the disability royal commission about the vulnerability created when people are isolated, and the resulting risk of violence, abuse and exploitation.
Sunshine Coast Paralympian Marayke Jonkers, a triple Paralympic medallist, challenged the government’s framing of social and community participation supports as discretionary.
She argued that support for leaving the house enabled people with disability to work, pay taxes, build skills and maintain independence, and that forcing people to choose between hands-on treatment and trialling a wheelchair or prosthetic leg was not saving money but creating future costs.
The bill’s proposed expansion of ministerial powers also drew sharp criticism. The legislation would allow the minister to cut entire categories of support without further legislation or public consultation. Greens senator Jordon Steele-John described this as effectively a legislative blank cheque that any future government could use to gut the scheme overnight.
Butler’s position: stay the course
Despite the volume and consistency of the evidence, Butler has given no indication the government intends to make substantial changes. He described the reforms as a “very well developed plan” that had thought carefully about how to get the NDIS back on track while keeping people with disability at its centre.
He said large adjustments to the overhaul were not expected following the inquiry, and confirmed Labor’s aim of passing the changes before parliament rises on 2 July.
On the Coalition’s push for a longer inquiry, Butler was dismissive. He accused shadow treasurer Angus Taylor of using the NDIS as a bargaining chip in negotiations over unrelated budget measures, and called on the opposition to focus on what was genuinely best for reform. Whether the Coalition ultimately supports the bill remains the key variable in whether it passes before the winter recess.
The government has emphasised that alternative support systems will be in place. The Thriving Kids programme, aimed at children under nine, is due to begin rolling out in October. But agreements with states and territories on how those supports will be funded and delivered remain unresolved, a fact Butler did not directly address when put to him.
The inquiry received more than 4,000 submissions, the overwhelming majority of which had not been published by the time hearings concluded. The Senate committee’s report is expected imminently, with the government having signalled it will consider that report before finalising its position, while simultaneously insisting the direction of travel will not change.
That tension, between nominal openness to the inquiry process and an obvious determination to proceed, has become the defining characteristic of the government’s approach. For the hundreds of thousands of Australians whose supports hang in the balance, the distinction between the two may prove to matter enormously.
