How policy intentions shift: Research on NDIS implementation
As the NDIS faces significant ongoing reforms, it can be useful to look back at where we’ve come from – from disability rights to fights for entitlements, and from investment to cost containment, Eloise Hummell summarises her recent co-authored article on policy drift and evolution in the NDIS.
Social policies often don't go as planned when put into practice, and Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is no exception. The journey from policy design to implementation is a complex one, involving multiple stakeholders, sectors, and responsibilities. It's a dynamic and political process, where balancing interests and maintaining support is a continuous evolutionary challenge.
Shifts and drifts aren’t always as benign as they might seem - image by patano on Wikimedia Commons
Our new article in the Australian Journal of Public Administration explores how NDIS policy has evolved from its initial intentions to its current state, highlighting the various shifts and drifts that have occurred along the way. Despite the significant benefits the NDIS has brought to people with disabilities, it has faced numerous implementation challenges that need to be addressed to improve the scheme. “Policy shifts and drifts: From intention to implementation of Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme” sheds light on how stakeholders view the NDIS policy goals and the shifts over time, especially on NDIS decision-making, highlighting the design and implementation issues.
This work is part of a broader research project, Adjudicating Rights for a Sustainable National Disability Insurance Scheme (funded by the Australian Research Council), which focuses on understanding the decision-making of NDIS reasonable and necessary supports, especially when those decisions are contested in reviews and appeals.
For us, sustainability isn't just about monetary costs. It's about equity, rights, accountability, and transparency. Sustainability means ensuring that the NDIS continues long-term by allocating resources in a way that safeguards fairness and justice.
What we did
We conducted interviews with 31 people involved with the NDIS, including government agencies, legal bodies, advocacy groups, health professionals, and academics. Some interview participants were people with disabilities. They shared their views on how well the scheme has stayed true to its original goals (as they perceived them) over the past decade, especially in terms of providing ‘reasonable and necessary’ supports.
What we found
Here are some key policy deviations and some other observations from stakeholders:
Policy Intentions vs. Implementation: There's a gap between the original goals of the NDIS and the actual outcomes. The NDIS started well with good intentions, focusing on individual needs and disability rights. However, stakeholders felt the scheme had drifted away from these principles, turning into a fight for entitlements.
Cost and Sustainability: One of the major issues highlighted is the focus on the costs of the scheme, which has sometimes overshadowed the importance of sustainability and long-term benefits. Financial constraints and cost-saving measures have contributed to moving away from the original goals of the NDIS. The scheme was initially designed based on certain assumptions about the people it would cover, assumptions that have proven incorrect, causing significant cost pressures. To address these financial challenges, there has been a push for more standardised decision-making processes.
Rights-Based Approach: There's a low prevalence of rights-based terminology in policy documents, suggesting a diminished focus on rights over time. The NDIS appears to be paying less attention to disability rights, raising doubts about whether the government's promises are being fulfilled. In other welfare areas, rights are given once certain conditions are met. However, in the NDIS, the right to support is unclear and depends on interpreting the six "reasonable and necessary" criteria, which often conflict with each other.
‘Reasonable and Necessary’ as useful yet complicated: Stakeholders found it to be a useful and balanced tool, but also acknowledged that it was challenging to apply because it wasn't very specific. This lack of clear guidelines led to inconsistencies and difficulties in decision-making, which were further complicated by a shift towards cost containment. Although stakeholders valued the flexibility of the legislation to meet individual needs, it was inconsistently applied, with varying interpretations
Ongoing Dilemmas: Designing policies that balance rights, costs, sustainability, and consistency remains challenging.
What are the implications?
As debates continue about how to fund supports in the NDIS, it's crucial to consider the views of key stakeholders, foremost people with disabilities, and also their families, service providers, and government agencies. Legislative changes affecting NDIS supports took effect in 3 October 2024 and will need to be evaluated in their impact. Clear goals, better decision-making, and flexibility to adapt policies based on new information are essential for future success. Policy designers should also consider the broader social, political, and cultural contexts, potential trade-offs, and unintended consequences.
Understanding implementation issues and recognising why good intentions sometimes drift off course can provide valuable insights for future policy reforms. Through ongoing engagement, consultation, and a willingness to adapt and adjust policies based on emerging information, the NDIS can truly fulfill its promise to support people with disabilities.
This post is based on: Hummell, E., Foster, M., Burns, K., & Rimmer, S. H. (2025). Policy shifts and drifts: From intention to implementation of Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme. Australian Journal of Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12689
Moderated by Sophie Yates