News

I always wanted to be a hard-hitting journalist in the mold of Walter Conkite, Edward R. Murrow, or the Watergate-famed Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, but fate led me instead towards the dark arts of marketing. I know, I know… sensible decisions curtail childhood dreams. But in the past couple of months, the journalistic itch has returned, thanks in large part to the RedBridge reports and how the Federal Government has exploited them to prop up its NDIS cost-cutting agenda. 

If you’re unfamiliar with the RedBridge reports, they stem from a series of focus groups in 2023 that had the primary purpose of determining how the Australian people felt about the NDIS. In a seemingly resounding win for the scheme, the reports found that support for the NDIS was strong, with those surveyed united behind the idea that people with disabilities deserve to live the lives that they wish to live–and that the scheme was worthy of tax payers’ money. 

A big, glorious success for the government, right? Delivering exactly what the people wanted? Sadly, in the Federal Government’s eyes, no. Not even close.

The truth is simple: the government knew that it would introduce harsh NDIS reform and wanted to test the waters to see if the public would support this change; in the event the public didn’t–and remember, the Redbridge reports found that people loved the scheme–the government needed to find a way to make it so.

While nobody has made a classic film about my journalistic life as they have with Walter, Ed, Bob, and Carl, I feel confident that I can sniff out a story when I see one. I believe that we need to investigate how these Redbridge reports have been used to wholly reshape the NDIS. 

What is RedBridge Group?

RedBridge is a consultancy firm that specialises in social and political research. They compile and interpret research data and provide commentary on various issues, while they are also a registered lobbyist, arranging access to ministers and officials. 

Although RedBridge doesn’t publish a full client list, a quick scouring of its website reveals that it’s conducted research and run campaigns for Hancock Prospecting, Australian Diagnostic Imaging Association, MYOB, Qantas, and both sides of politics. They’ve done a lot. 

But most noteworthy, at least of late, is its work for the NDIA. In 2023, it facilitated focus groups and tested political messaging about the NDIS and how Australians view it. The NDIA later published the reports, and Freedom of Information (FOI) requests got more of the material released.

I should note that it isn’t an uncommon practice for governments to use such consultancies to bolster new policies, as was evidently the case here: the Federal Government enlisted RedBridge to test the waters on what the public thought about the NDIS, to inform how it would make any NDIS reform changes palatable. But sadly, as we will see, this has been at the direct expense of people with disabilities.

An important thing to note is that the published PDFs don’t in fact name RedBridge themselves. RedBridge is named by former NDIS minister Bill Shorten and by ABC reporting.

What did the research find?

In its first round, where it conducted narrative research in February 2023, RedBridge facilitated 16 online focus groups with about 160 people, split into voter groups such as ‘homebuilders’, ‘outsiders’, and ‘working townies’. Only two of the groups were people with disabilities.

This first round found that support for the scheme was strong in every group. You read that right: every group. People saw it as a moral duty, a path to independent lives, and a safety net for everyone.

Even after groups heard about the economic pressures placed upon the scheme, nobody called for funding cuts. People asked for audits, reform and fraud crackdowns instead. One person said, ‘I would rather see some people get in who aren’t supposed to, than see so many people being left out.’

From these findings, RedBridge recommended appropriate messaging for the NDIA to use when talking about the scheme–human value, empowerment and national identity–and to frame changes as reform, not cuts.

What followed in March 2023 was policy proposal testing, comprising 16 groups, with 9 featuring participants and carers. Six reforms were tested, all with high support:

• more specialised NDIA staff
• long-term planning
• a fraud crackdown
• price controls and a provider marketplace
• stronger mainstream supports
• temporary limits on Supported Independent Living (SIL).

Unsurprisingly, the advice was to centre participants, keep the language plain, and avoid ‘sustainability’ or cost-cutting language, because it made people cynical about what the government really intended. 

(I would’ve charged the federal government half the price to deliver the same verdict, but apparently the government would prefer to save money elsewhere… you know, in cutting the plans of NDIS participants.)

By this point, you’re probably wondering, ‘Hey Tris, you world-renowned journalist, none of these findings justify what we’re seeing now.’ You would be right. But in October 2023, RedBridge facilitated 14 groups and tested ‘humanising’ and ‘sustainability’ reforms. 

These lined up closely with what the NDIS Review would recommend in December 2023: navigators, flexible budgets, government-funded assessments, a higher threshold for developmental delay, 1:3 shared care, and evidence-based supports.

Within the groups, people said that ‘humanising’ language made them optimistic, while unpopular measures got only ‘qualified tolerance’, and only when paired with off-setting benefits and exceptions for hard cases.

The line you might have read from the report: ‘When we presented rorts, fraud, and unreasonable pricing as posing an existential threat to the NDIS, we were able to create an environment in which respondents were amenable to reforms designed to counter these things.’

The chilling result is that the government has taken these reports, dismissed the findings that the public overwhelmingly supports the NDIS, and manipulated the public to believe that fraud is rife with very little evidence – for the sole reason that RedBridge stated this was the way to make people ‘amenable to reforms’. 

What did the experts say?

The government cited the reports as proof of public support. In an op-ed on 27–28 March 2024, the day he introduced the Getting the NDIS Back on Track Bill, Shorten cited RedBridge’s finding that the NDIS is ‘as fundamental to Australians as Medicare’. (Just the right sprinkling of humanising language.) He then moved on to fraud and providers who treat participants as ‘human ATMs’. (Straight from the RedBridge playbook.)

Over time, albeit with heavy redactions, more than 220 pages of RedBridge documents have been released via FOI requests, prompting critics and many advocates to argue that the research is evidence of a narrative built first. 

• Hannah Thomas (Cheek Media, 2026) argues the government used to justify $14.4 billion in savings in 2024 and the 2026 cuts.
• Lisbeth Latham (27 April 2026) argues, ‘the communication strategy was developed before the policy detail was settled.’ She also says fraud makes up only about 1% of the forecast savings in the 2026 package.

Although several commentaries say that RedBridge advised that the NDIA lead with fraud and ‘spiralling costs’, the published reports are more mixed. They warn explicitly against cost-led messaging and against cuts, and recommend leading with ‘humanising’ reforms. Either way, the Federal Government has cherry picked parts of the reports to manipulate the public. It’s as brazen as that. 

Has this influenced federal decisions?

No, because the government always knew that it would proceed with its reforms and cut costs from the NDIS. But in using RedBridge, they have determined how to best communicate these changes – and that’s in manipulating the public to think NDIS participants and providers are defrauding the tax payer, when the reality is that fraud is almost non-existent.

This isn’t to say fraud doesn’t happen, but when the recent legislative changes don’t tackle fraud in the slightest, and merely serve to either strip funding from participants or kick them off the scheme entirely, it’s wholly evident that the fraud narrative has been perpetuated merely because the RedBridge reports said this is how to convince the public of reform. 

If anything, RedBridge provided evidence that the public overwhelmingly supports the NDIS. It’s infuriating that the government is using it to prop up legislative changes that our own Human Rights Commission has warned against. But hey, let’s spend money on consultancy and twist and skew the results to portray people with disability as the problem and a liability.

Maybe I’m not a journalist like Walter, Ed, Bob nor Carl because I can’t be as impartial and dispassionate as them. I’m simply mad that we’ve been treated like fools–because the government thinks we are.