What the Casey Commission can take away from Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme 

As the Independent commission into adult social care begins, our Engagement Officer, Phoebe Kerr, reflects on how the National Disability Insurance Scheme in Australia has empowered people who draw on care and support the choice to live their lives on their own terms, and what both countries might learn from each other as they strive for more person-centred care. 

As an Australian following the establishment of the Casey Commission here in the England, I’m reminded of a similar crossroads we found ourselves in 14 years ago.  

Back home, the Every Australian Counts campaign played a pivotal role in mobilising public support for what would become the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). It was a collective voice of disabled people, families, carers, and service providers calling for equity, inclusion, and choice. The movement was as much about cultural shift as it was about system changes, much like what I see emerging in the UK today.  

The NDIS, legislated in 2013, was a landmark shift. It changed Australian’s mindset – about disability with a shift from welfare-based models to rights-based, individualised funding. The transition has not been without its challenges which has included implementation complexities, equity of access in rural areas, workforce pressures, and the constant tension between personalised support and bureaucratic mechanisms. But fundamentally, the NDIS has reshaped national expectations of what good disability support can and should look like. 

From this vantage point, I’m watching the Casey Commission’s work with deep interest, particularly the way it plans to consider older people’s care and support and working age disabled adults separately. In Australia, these systems are structurally and administratively separate. The rationale has been that the life trajectories, goals, and support needs of older people and disabled people are different – and should be treated as such. A 25-year-old with a lifelong disability will likely have vastly different aspirations and support requirements from an 85-year-old navigating how they wish to age comfortably and with autonomy.  

This separation allows for greater specialisation, tailored policy design and targeted funding but it can also bring real challenges. People don’t always fit neatly into one system or another – particularly those who acquire disability as they age (as many people do), or who become ineligible to apply for the NDIS aged 65. This fragmentation can lead to service gaps, duplicated assessments or abrupt changes in eligibility and entitlements. It’s a tension that still hasn’t been fully resolved in Australia. 

The UK’s more integrated approach raises timely questions for us: does integration promote better continuity of care, or dilute the distinct needs of each group? Can we honour difference without institutionalising division? Does producing separate recommendations for each group risk politicians prioritising one over the other? It also recognises the underlying truth which is that no matter your age or circumstances the desire and right for choice, freedom, autonomy, community and support is there. 

This is a pivotal moment in the UK; an opportunity to rethink the fundamentals of social care and put the views of people who draw on care and support at the centre. That was the lesson from Every Australian Counts: systemic reform must be built by and with the people it affects. The Casey Commission seems to understand this, and I’m hopeful about where it might lead. 

Social care transformation is never finished, it’s a journey shaped by shared values, persistent advocacy, and the courage to act on what we already know. I look forward to seeing how the Casey Commission moves forward with its plan to reform adult social care and implement a national care service, and what both our countries can learn from each other in the process.