A pivotal moment for the NDIS in Queensland will be restoring trust and pride in the scheme. It is not a moment that can be seen but one that will be felt, case by case. The NDIS Act from the outset set a high bar in its objectives. The first objective is to give effect to Australia’s obligations under the Convention of Rights of People with Disabilities. The convention’s key tenet is respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of persons. Stakeholders strongly support the objectives of the scheme. “It has transformed the delivery of disability services by nearly tripling the funding for disability services in Queensland, affording access to support for the first time for half of Queensland participants, and providing greater choice and control for around three-quarters of Queensland participants” (QPC). The scheme has also improved participants’ daily lives, relationships and social participation (QPC). Tune reported that for many people with disability, the NDIS had increased their ability to live an ordinary life and achieve their goals and aspirations. However, the implementation has not been smooth, and its ability to provide a consistent, effective and high-quality service system has been impacted. People with disability have been frustrated that the dreams of the NDIS have not fully eventuated. Inconsistencies across regional, rural and remote towns have led to a sense of unfairness. Perceived inconsistency and unfairness in decisionmaking and advice were exacerbated in rural/remote regions where services and advocacy were more difficult (Kendall). Although the system itself is overly complicated, it is ironically unable to deal with the complexities and intersectional reality of the disability sector (Kendall). Systemic issues create barriers for people with disability that prevent them from easily accessing the NDIS. It is perceived, therefore, that these barriers are preventing people with disability from realising the goals they set out to achieve. Moskos found that the NDIS was perceived to be not only complex but ‘burdensome to navigate’. Tune confirmed that the NDIA cannot rely on people approaching the NDIS of their own accord nor assume that people with disability have the capacity or confidence to navigate the NDIS by themselves. Thus, the implementation of the complexity of the NDIS is undermining the achievement of its own initial objectives and the spirit with which it was established. Building in flexibility and a better user experience will mean careful consideration of unique intersections among disability, culture, gender, poverty, and geography. Trust is not easy to regain and requires over-emphasis of transparency and thoughtfulness. The NDIS is currently perceived as a large amorphous and impenetrable system with no clear delineations between stakeholders and hidden conflicts of interest. Instead, the NDIS needs to represent a revolution in government services by developing a human face, not as a campaign, but as a cultural change at the NDIA. It needs to be led from a position of growth and value for people, rather than from a position of suspicion and regulation. The response needs to be a well-planned, sincere, process of change lead by people with disability and deliberately reaching out to people who do not usually have a voice.