A Dispute Down Under

A significant political standoff is unfolding in Australia, where state and territory disability ministers have threatened to boycott a crucial meeting with the federal government over proposed reforms to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). In a joint letter sent on Thursday, 30 October 2025, the ministers informed federal Health and Disability Minister Mark Butler and NDIS Minister Jenny McAllister that they could not confirm their attendance at next Friday's meeting. The immediate cause is an agenda that allocates each minister just two minutes of speaking time following a 20-minute federal government presentation. The ministers have demanded at least 10 minutes each to ensure a "meaningful contribution" to the national reform process.

However, the dispute over speaking time masks a deeper conflict over the future of disability support in Australia. The core issue is a federal proposal to transition children with mild to moderate developmental delays or autism from the comprehensive, federally-funded NDIS to new state-run programs. This proposed overhaul, part of a wider effort to manage the NDIS's ballooning costs, has been met with criticism from state leaders who claim they were not adequately consulted. The federal government maintains the reforms are necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of the scheme and better target resources to individuals with the most significant and permanent disabilities.

Global Context: The NDIS Model

Launched in 2013, Australia's NDIS is a globally recognized social policy innovation. It represents a shift away from block-funding institutions to providing funding directly to individuals with permanent and significant disabilities. This individualised funding model empowers participants to choose the services and supports they need to achieve their personal goals, fostering independence and community participation. The scheme is not means-tested and is funded entirely by the government, operating as a national social insurance program designed to provide certainty and lifelong support for eligible citizens under 65. The current reforms aim to address rising costs, which are projected to grow significantly without intervention, and to clarify the roles of federal and state governments in providing disability services.

Parallels for Kenya's Devolved System

While thousands of kilometres away, the Australian standoff offers a potent case study for Kenya, reflecting similar challenges within its own system of devolved governance. The tension between Australia's federal government and its states mirrors the ongoing push-and-pull between Kenya's national government and its 47 counties, particularly concerning the funding and administration of social services. Since the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution, devolution has been a cornerstone of Kenya's governance, yet disputes over revenue sharing and the precise responsibilities of each level of government remain persistent challenges.

In Kenya, the mandate for supporting persons with disabilities is anchored in law, primarily through the Persons with Disabilities Act. The National Council for Persons with Disabilities (NCPWD), a state corporation, is tasked with implementing policies to mainstream disability issues into the national economy. Recent legislative updates in 2025 have further strengthened these protections, aligning Kenyan law more closely with international conventions and mandating inclusion in employment, education, and healthcare. The new Act explicitly outlines obligations for both national and county governments, with counties responsible for implementing national policies and ensuring access to services at the local level.

Lessons in Governance and Consultation

The Australian NDIS dispute underscores a universal principle: major social policy reforms require robust consultation and clear agreement between different levels of government. The claim by Australian state ministers of being blindsided by the federal government's proposals is a cautionary tale. For Kenya's devolution to succeed, particularly in complex areas like social protection, co-creation of policy between the national government, county governments, and bodies like the Council of Governors is essential to avoid implementation gaps and funding disputes.

Furthermore, the Australian debate on the financial sustainability of the NDIS is highly relevant. Kenyan counties often face financial constraints that hamper service delivery. As Kenya develops its social protection floors, including cash transfers and other support for persons with severe disabilities managed by the NCPWD, the Australian experience highlights the critical need for realistic, long-term financial planning. Ensuring that devolved functions are adequately funded is paramount to their success and to meeting the constitutional promise of equitable service delivery for all Kenyans, including the more than 900,000 citizens officially registered as living with a disability. The Australian ministers' threatened boycott is not merely about protocol; it is a fight for influence over a policy that will directly impact vulnerable citizens, a dynamic that is central to the success of devolution in Kenya and around the world.