The first story in today’s Wrap describes the horrific conditions in which people with disability were effectively imprisoned in outer suburban Melbourne. The ABC reported the story of a man who “built a network to plunder the NDIS” along with the “human cost to those caught in its web.” The disgusting details that followed backed up that claim.

The details and images were horrific. Along with images of abandoned wheelchairs and squalid accommodation with rubbish strewn about, were interviews with support coordinators and a vulnerable person.

It’s important to note at this point that although a special police task force has been established to investigate the matters, no charges have yet been laid, and abilityNEWS is not suggesting the facts are exactly as asserted by the ABC.

Although having worked alongside reporter Jessica Longbottom personally, it’s difficult for our staff to doubt the meticulous accuracy of her report. It is a terrible story of exploitation; one where the most vulnerable people in society have been harvested simply for their NDIS funding streams.

That story will play out in court. The point of this piece, however, is to look at what the story means for the NDIS more broadly.

From one point of view it means nothing. The system works. The police have been involved and, compared to the $50 billion total cost of the NDIS the alleged rorting - even if it’s in the millions of dollars - is statistically insignificant. But that’s not the way news works. Stories like this operate on people’s emotions.

The fact that proportionately, not a great deal of money was ripped off is irrelevant to the public. The point is this should never have been allowed and must never be allowed to happen again.

Feed into that feeling Peter Dutton’s comment on Sky news yesterday. "I'm committed to the NDIS,” he said, “and I'm committed to equity for people with disabilities. But I’m against waste and rorts and rackets”.

Who could argue with that?

How might such policies take effect? Well, the last government considered forcing all service providers to be registered with the government. They dropped that plan because of the complexity and difficulty of implementing it. Change the broader political context, however, and you dramatically change what’s possible.

A move like this might represent a radical change to the sector and cause great difficulties to smaller providers. Nevertheless, and particularly after such degrading examples of ruthless exploitation, wouldn’t greater regulation have a great deal of popular appeal?

As spending on the NDIS grows, so will the demands to curb its cost.

The scheme can’t afford many more stories like this.