The Claim
“Scrapped the requirement that the board members of the National Disability Insurance Scheme have actual experience with disabilities (either personally, or through someone close).”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core claim is FALSE. The requirement for board members to have disability experience was NOT scrapped by the Coalition government. This requirement remains in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 to this day.
According to Section 127(2) of the NDIS Act 2013, a person is eligible for appointment as a Board member only if the Minister is satisfied that the person:
- Is a person with disability, OR
- Is a person that has lived experience with disability, OR
- Is a person that has skills, experience or knowledge in at least one of the following fields: (a) the provision or use of disability services; (b) the operation of insurance schemes; (c) financial management; (d) corporate governance [1].
The controversy in September 2015 concerned the Abbott Government's process for appointing new board members as existing terms were expiring, not the removal of disability experience requirements from legislation. The Australian Financial Review reported on September 3, 2015 that the government placed advertisements for board positions without informing current directors, including Chair Bruce Bonyhady [2].
Missing Context
The claim omits several critical facts:
The board terms were expiring: The terms of all current Board members were set by the previous Labor government and were due to expire on June 30, 2016. The appointment process was necessary to ensure continuity of the Board [3].
The legislation was never changed: The NDIS Act 2013 has never been amended to remove the disability experience requirements. Section 127(2) continues to require that board members either have disability/lived experience OR relevant professional skills [1].
The government's stated intentions: Minister Mitch Fifield explicitly stated in his September 7, 2015 media release that "The new Board will include some members with experience on the boards of large listed companies or Government Business Enterprises, the requirements detailed in the NDIS Act and people with relevant skill sets and lived experience of disability" [3].
The process was consultative: Contrary to allegations of a "stealth approach," the Commonwealth had been consulting with States and Territories since April 2015. All jurisdictions had confirmed their agreement to the appointment process by July 29, 2015 [3].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source - the Australian Financial Review article by Laura Tingle - is a reputable mainstream financial publication. However, the article reported on the advertising process and the surprise of board members at discovering their positions being advertised, not on any legislative change to remove disability experience requirements.
The claim conflates two separate issues:
- The legitimate controversy about the communication process with existing board members
- A false assertion that disability experience requirements were removed from legislation
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
The NDIS Act 2013, which established the board appointment requirements including the disability experience criteria, was passed under the Labor government led by Julia Gillard with Jenny Macklin as Minister for Disability Reform [4][5].
The original Board appointments in 2013, including Bruce Bonyhady as inaugural Chair, were made by the Labor government. The Coalition actually welcomed these appointments at the time, with Senator Mitch Fifield issuing a media release on June 19, 2013 stating: "The Coalition welcomes the appointment of Mr Bruce Bonyhady AM as the inaugural Chair of the NDIS Board. Mr Bonyhady has been one of the intellectual driving forces of the NDIS and has a long term and personal commitment to Australians with disability" [6].
No equivalent controversy arose under Labor because their appointees' terms had not yet expired. The 2015 appointment process was necessitated by the expiry of terms set by Labor in 2013.
Balanced Perspective
While the Coalition government's communication process regarding the board advertisement was legitimately criticized - with board members learning of the process through newspaper advertisements rather than direct communication - the fundamental claim that disability experience requirements were "scrapped" is factually incorrect.
The NDIS was transitioning from a pilot scheme to full implementation, requiring participation to grow from 30,000 to 460,000 people over three years, with administration costs of $22 billion. The government sought board members with skills appropriate for this significant scaling phase, including corporate governance and financial management experience, while maintaining the disability experience requirements in the Act [3].
The 2013 legislation itself recognized the need for diverse skills, allowing for board members with either lived disability experience OR professional expertise in disability services, insurance, finance, or governance. This was always a hybrid model, not solely focused on disability experience.
FALSE
2.0
out of 10
The claim that the Coalition "scrapped the requirement that board members have actual experience with disabilities" is factually incorrect. The NDIS Act 2013 Section 127(2) continues to require that board members have either disability/lived experience OR relevant professional skills. No amendment to this provision was made in 2015 or subsequently. The 2015 controversy concerned the process of advertising board positions and the balance of skills sought for the transition to full scheme implementation, not the removal of disability experience requirements from legislation.
Final Score
2.0
OUT OF 10
FALSE
The claim that the Coalition "scrapped the requirement that board members have actual experience with disabilities" is factually incorrect. The NDIS Act 2013 Section 127(2) continues to require that board members have either disability/lived experience OR relevant professional skills. No amendment to this provision was made in 2015 or subsequently. The 2015 controversy concerned the process of advertising board positions and the balance of skills sought for the transition to full scheme implementation, not the removal of disability experience requirements from legislation.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (6)
-
5
Jenny Macklin - Wikipedia
Wikipedia -
2
classic.austlii.edu.au
SECT 127 Appointment of Board members
-
3
afr.com
The Abbott Government is moving to replace the board of the National Disability Insurance Scheme by placing an ad for the board's jobs in The Australian Financial Review without informing the current directors.
Australian Financial Review -
4
formerministers.dss.gov.au
Formerministers Dss Gov -
5
nma.gov.au
Wikipedia -
6
mitchfifield.com
The Honourable Mitch Fifield
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.