NDIS and disability rights: revisiting an early reform vision
Part One: Australia’s Pride, England’s Shame
By Dr Simon Duffy · Originally published 22 November 2017
Original article and dated context
_This is the first of two posts published by Dr Simon Duffy, founder and Director of the Centre for Welfare Reform, which works to improve the design of the welfare state to advance citizenship and human right. He is also Secretary to the international cooperative Citizen Network. You can read _his blog at here.
How Australia is taking the lead in disability rights and social care
I have just returned from 3 weeks in Australia where I have been working with disability advocates, families and support organisations. The question we were exploring is how can we best support our own active citizenship and the citizenship of others. I was also able to be part of the launch of Citizen Network Australia in Perth and it was fantastic to hear people’s enthusiasm about building a global movement for citizenship for everyone – for a world where everyone matters.
The trip was also a chance to reflect again on the development of NDIS. Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is without doubt the most exciting, most ambitious and most perilous attempt to reform disability support and to bring it in line with human rights and the principles of independent living. All around the world, we have a stake in this reform, because no other country has been brave enough to introduce such an important reform.
Critically NDIS aims to do three vitally important things:
Properly fund the support needs of all people with disabilities (including many people with mental health problems) under pension age.
Remove all means-testing so that every Australian has the security of knowing that the system will be there for them, no matter their income.
Ensure all funding is individualised and under the control of the person or their representative, so that people can get support that makes sense and enable them to be a full and active citizen.
[Clickability update, October 2026:
Current access requires an application before age 65 and other residence, disability or early-intervention criteria; it is not an entitlement for everyone under pension age. See NDIA eligibility guidance. Approved purchases must also meet current support rules.
]
This is brilliant – if Australia achieves this it will have moved itself from the back of the pack in disability rights to become a true world leader.
How this differs to England
This is in stark contrast to my home country, England. Similar reforms in England, which began with the Independent Living Fund (ILF), Direct Payments and then Personal Budgets all promised much in terms of increasing people’s level of control over their own support. However these achievements pale into insignificance alongside the vicious means-testing and the severe cuts that began in 2009. There are 700,000 fewer people now getting support than in 2009, a drop of about 40% – and these problems are only getting worse. The United Nations has severely criticised the UK for its failure to respect the human rights of its own citizens, and their criticisms are entirely justified. Social care in England remains a ‘Poor Law’ service – a poor service, for the poor, that keeps you poor.
We have still not learnt that genuine and positive reform is possible; but it begins by bringing together people with disabilities – all disabilities – families and support organisations to campaign and to explain – not so much to Government – but to the general public – why a right to disability support (what England calls social care) is a fundamental human right. I continue to work with the Socialist Health Association to encourage the Labour Party to develop a more positive and ambitious vision. I am extremely grateful to the Australian disability movement for showing us the way ahead – we just need to follow them.
However there are some major challenges ahead. Having a plan is one thing; putting that plan into action is something entirely different.
Why we should still be cautious
I was in Australia when the details of NDIS were first announced and I met with the design team – the civil servants charged with defining how NDIS was to be delivered. My analysis, which I went on to publish (with my usual tact and diplomacy) was that the design of the system was very poor indeed. There remains a severe danger that the system will become enmeshed in centralised bureaucratic controls that undermine the basic human rights that NDIS aims to respect.
Moreover, many of my friends in Australia are the people who called for these reforms and who continue to work to innovate and improve the system so that disabled people and families are put in charge of their own lives. They are now on a rollercoaster of emotions as they see enormous progress in some areas, matched by the development of systems that seem damaging or just plain peculiar. You can read a moving story from one woman’s perspective here.
It would be tempting to say “I told you so.” But I don’t think that’s the appropriate response, and my last visit to Australia has left me much more encouraged than downhearted.
You can read all the reasons why Dr. Duffy believes NDIS can work in next week’s blog! (Published Wednesday.)
Clickability editorial update: October 2026
Judge choice by what happens after the plan arrives
Ask whether proposed services fit your goals, communication and daily life. Identify the barriers between having a plan and using useful support, such as unavailable providers, inaccessible information or unclear responsibilities. Keep records of the change you want and who can help address it.
The author’s reform ambitions can help frame these questions, but they do not establish an individual entitlement. Check your actual plan and current rules. Supported decision-making policy is relevant when you want help comparing options without handing over your preferences.
Test whether your processes increase the person’s control
Review how people receive information, change arrangements and raise concerns. A choice between preset packages may not address the preference the person is expressing. Explain real service limits and offer information about other options when appropriate.
Avoid using the article’s historical funding aims as marketing promises. Describe your current service and applicable terms. NDIS rights standards provide a practical reference for respecting autonomy in everyday delivery.
Is NDIS access based only on being below pension age?
No. Applications must meet the current age and other eligibility requirements. Official guidance
Is the English comparison current?
No. It is retained as historical commentary.
Find providers who help put choices into practice
Describe the support you want through Clickability. Compare providers and ask how their service will fit your goals, preferences and actual funding arrangements.
