_{If this email has been forwarded to you, sign up here}

Just a weekly story for the next little while, but this is both big and important.

The new Evidence Advisory Committee, made up of experts (and including people with lived experience) met for the first time last week to begin sorting out the way they will work and how they’ll make decisions on which therapies the NDIS should be funding.

It’s a key question - and Chair Professor Jill Duncan has sought to make it very clear that cost will absolutely not be at the top of list of questions the EAC’s seeking to answer.

Our Big Story is an interview with her.

We’ll be back with another Big Story next week. Until then we’ll be solving some technical issues do that we can better provide the news and information you need to stay informed about the NDIS.

Best, Nic Stuart [email protected]

For years, the NDIS has been a battleground of competing claims. Dubious therapies with glossy marketing have collided with desperate hopes of fulfilled lives. It’s left the NDIS struggling as it attempts to sort out genuine supports from wasted spending.

Now a NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee (EAC) of 43 experts - which includes, most critically, People with Disability - will do what’s been missing. This team will apply independent scrutiny to every support the scheme is paying for.

In her first interview since becoming Chair of the new decision-making committee, Professor Jill Duncan tells abilityNEWS the principle is simple.

“Our task is to investigate what is best for people with disability. Full stop.”

Professor Jill Duncan Therapies and assistive technologies will be set against three tests. First, safety. Next, a rigorous academic examination of their effectiveness. And finally, whether a better support exists.

Only after this exhaustive investigation of what’s best for People with Disability will there be any consideration of cost.

This isn’t about rubber-stamping or addressing the economic pressures on the scheme. It really is about building a transparent architecture for decision-making, placing the voice of people with disability at the centre of the review.

After the first issue, safety, is addressed, university-trained experts will conduct comprehensive evidence reviews. Subcommittees will then weigh both assistive technology and capacity-building supports examining their effectiveness and need. After this cost-effectiveness will be assessed before recommendations proceed to the minister.

Duncan stresses this isn’t about yes or no answers.

“We want to provide help before people have to make decisions. That means offering real information that people can use.”

Billions of taxpayer dollars ride on these judgments. But more importantly, so do the lives of participants who depend on safe, effective supports.

The goal is straightforward: evidence, not hype. The NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee won’t simply hand down rulings. It’s designed to build trust by making every stage of its work visible.