The RAC submission does more than just criticise Labor’s NDIS Bill. It reveals a far deeper problem: an advisory structure built to hear people with disability was simply ignored as critical decisions were made.

What’s important is not what the NDIS Reform Advisory Committee says about the NDIS reforms, but what its submission tells us about the process.

The RAC was created to advise governments on NDIS reform and engagement with people with disability. But when the time came to consult it was ignored.

In fact, as far as it can ascertain, no Disability Representative Organisation was consulted on Mark Butler’s National Press Club speech, the Budget, or any draft of the Bill.

Either the Government didn’t care about the voices of people with disability, or the machinery was just window-dressing and never meant to shape the hard decisions.

Neither possibility is flattering.

The critique is not simply that the timetable is too short. It says the Bill should not proceed in its current form and insists it should be redrafted in genuine partnership with the disability community.

This turns co-design from a government slogan into evidence against it.

The committee says the savings Labor wants can be found in other ways. Provider integrity, fraud enforcement, pricing reform and reduced legal contest should have guided these reforms, not a complete re-design.

The RAC was supposed to be part of the architecture of trust.

Its submission says that trust has already broken.

_______________________________________________

[continued from the abilityNEWS newsletter]

What makes the Reform Advisory Committee submission so politically dangerous is who wrote it.

It is not a peak-body media release. It is not a Greens talking point. It’s the Government’s own advisory committee.

The RAC was established after the NDIS Review to monitor implementation, advise on engagement and ensure the disability community’s views were heard by ministers. But Minister Mark Butler didn’t bother engaging before he unveiled sweeping changes to the scheme. The government’s own committee says no disability organisations were consulted on the speech, the Budget or draft text.

The Government did not use its own consultation structure when it mattered most. Why?

Would its advice have been inconvenient? The submission does not answer. It doesn’t need to. The facts do enough.

The second revelation is that the Government’s language and the Bill’s machinery are pulling in different directions.

Labor says it is restoring the NDIS to its original intent but the changes are about money.

The RAC points back to the Productivity Commission’s original model; individualised supports, choice, and a shift in decision-making towards people with disability and their carers. It argues the Bill moves the other way.

That is not a technical complaint but a challenge to Labor’s core story.

If this is original intent, why does the Government need new powers to reduce whole support categories by ministerial instrument?

If this is participant-centred reform, why does sustainability now sit inside individual support decisions?

If this is the NDIS Review, why are cuts arriving before foundational supports exist?

The RAC says the Bill “inverts” the Review. The Review called for careful sequencing, foundational supports first and staged transition. The submission says Labor is doing it the other way around: cuts first, alternatives later.

This is the political weakness opponents had been missing.

Government’s building the exit before the bridge.

Most importantly, the RAC says the Bill alters the balance of the Scheme by concentrating authority in the Commonwealth Minister. It pictures Butler in togs and a short cape as Henry VIII, having laws that say one thing and then arbitarily doing another, as the fancy takes him.

Anne of Cleves today, Anne Boleyn tomorrow.

It identifies four major shifts: a budget-reduction power, pricing determinations, automation, and a shift of power to the minister This is a different story to fraud.

Fraud is easy politics but the RAC says the Bill goes much further than tackling rorts. It shifts control away from individualised planning, away from the NDIA Board, away from joint stewardship, and towards ministerial command.

The NDIS was built as a federated joint venture. Commonwealth, states, territories, an independent agency and people with disability all had roles in the architecture. The RAC says the Bill displaces that model with Commonwealth ministerial fiat.

This submission matters reframes the Bill from a savings package into a governance change.

The RAC says this Bill will not fix the NDIA.

It does not reform the Agency or address long-running concerns about its performance. Instead, it transfers some powers away from the Agency while leaving operational deficiencies untouched.

It uses sharp words: “the worst of both worlds.”

That is a devastating line because it suggests the Government is not rebuilding the institution but taking control of it.

For participants this distinction matters. It centralises power while leaving the machine clunking along dysfunctionally.

The Government has the numbers in the lower house to pass the bill. Opposition leader Angus Taylor says he will not block it. The Greens will oppose and crossbenchers will expose.

But the bill will pass. The only questions are how quickly, and will it be amended as it goes through.

It says the Government ignored the advisory body it created. It says the Bill harms current and future participants. It says the Bill misrepresents the foundations of the NDIS, inverts the Review and concentrates unprecedented power in the Commonwealth Minister.

That is more than process criticism - it’s a legitimacy problem.

Labor wanted this reform to look disciplined, budget-conscious and inevitable, but this submission challenges that argument. It makes it look rushed, centralised and imposed.

It punctures the story Labor wants to tell about it.