NDIS Reforms: Why legislation surrounding disability is the hardest to read.

 

Phoebe Hancox interrogates the ableism of the Government's textual formatting choices

 

You would be hard-pressed to find someone who had read every Terms and Conditions they came across. In fact, most people struggle to read even a single one from front to back, largely due to their length and onslaught of legal jargon.

 

Creating intentionally long, confusing and boring documents to deter users from reading them is a well-documented tactic used by many large organisations. The iTunes Terms of Service is over 20,000 words long and contains walls of text in incorrect formatting, such as all caps.

 

The following is an example of a long sentence in the iTunes Terms and Conditions:

 

“TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE LICENSED APPLICATION AND ANY SERVICES PERFORMED OR PROVIDED BY THE LICENSED APPLICATION ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND "AS AVAILABLE," WITH ALL FAULTS AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, AND LICENSOR HEREBY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE LICENSED APPLICATION AND ANY SERVICES, EITHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND/OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OF ACCURACY, OF QUIET ENJOYMENT, AND OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD-PARTY RIGHTS.”

There are two fundamental differences between digital terms and conditions and the newest NDIS bill: you have the choice and the time to read one of the documents, and iTunes isn’t going to strip away your support system. 

 

Introduced on the 14th of May, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment 2026 bill was dense and full of legal terminology. Some parts were vague and left open to interpretation, whereas other parts were complicated and wordy. For those brave enough to tackle the hundreds of pages of jargon, you only had two weeks to do so.

 

Tackling any sort of widespread reform is tricky; it involves a lot of consultation, technical language, and many people understand that it is a necessary evil of governance. Though it would be expected that documents, such as this bill, that impact the lives of so many people would be made available for an extended period of time and complemented with additional, more accessible material. 

 

 There are accessible documents and videos on the NDIS outlining how these changes will impact recipients; however, they are lacking in information and were not available until after the bill passed. 

The changes to the NDIS through the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment 2026 were passed on the 18th of August despite widespread criticism from the Disabled community; A community made of over 750,000 recipients.

 

Beyond the clear harm that these changes will have on the community, it is a disgraceful act for the government to hide behind pages and pages of text, acting like a terms-and-conditions page, to force these changes with little consultation.

 

Though perhaps this is not necessarily an NDIS issue but a larger issue on how policy and jargon can be weaponised against users.