08/10/2026
An open letter to The West Australian from DDWA Board Chair, Trish Sullivan, regarding the recent opinion piece titled “$13 Dagwood dogs and a serious need for Ozempic, Perth Royal Show has lost the plot.”
-----
Dear Mr Lowe,
I am writing further to my concerns regarding Ben Harvey’s opinion piece, “$13 Dagwood dogs and a serious need for Ozempic, Perth Royal Show has lost the plot”, published in The Sunday Times on 4 October 2026.
I ask that this correspondence be treated as a formal complaint and request for a published correction and apology, rather than solely as a Letter to the Editor.
I note that The Sunday Times has subsequently published a short “Corrections & Clarifications” notice stating that the article “was intended to be satire” and that, “on reflection, it is clear that offence could, and indeed was, taken to some of the comments made”. It concludes: “We sincerely apologise for any offence caused.”
With respect, this is not an adequate response to what was published.
The issue is not simply that people with disability were offended. The article perpetuated damaging stereotypes and conveyed a fundamentally misleading impression about people with disability, NDIS participants and the purpose of funded disability supports.
Mr Harvey wrote:
“Why is it that the people who most obviously have little cash are the ones spending so much of it?
Where does the money come from? Hang on, I know: my taxes.
Half of them had their bloody NDIS carers with them. How much did that cost me?”
The implication of these comments is deeply troubling.
Are people with disability who require support somehow less entitled to attend the Royal Show than everyone else? Should they remain at home because their participation in community life comes with a visible cost?
Describing the article retrospectively as “satire” does not remove the impact of those words, nor does it correct the premise underlying them.
An NDIS support worker accompanying a person with disability to the Royal Show is not evidence of misuse of taxpayer funds. For some people with significant disability, that support is what enables them to leave their home and participate in community life at all.
Without that support, some people may not be able to safely shop for groceries and other necessities, attend medical and other appointments, navigate public transport, participate in employment or education, or take part in the social and community activities that most of us take for granted.
The NDIS does not exist to pay for someone’s Dagwood dog, showbags or ordinary entertainment expenses. It may fund the disability-related support a person requires to participate in their community. Conflating the two leaves readers with a distorted impression of both the NDIS and the people who rely upon it.
This matters particularly in the current environment.
For almost two years, people with disability and their families have been exposed to sustained public and political commentary about the cost and sustainability of the NDIS, misuse of funds, fraud and the need to return the Scheme to its original purpose. Legitimate scrutiny of a major publicly funded scheme is necessary. But people with disability should not become collateral damage in that debate.
Indeed, from 1 October, NDIS budget allocations for social, economic and community participation supports are being reduced by 50 per cent as affected plans are created or reassessed, with the changes progressively extending to renewed plans. These are precisely the supports that can enable a person with disability to participate in ordinary community life.
At the very time that access to these supports is being significantly reduced, commentary suggesting that seeing people with disability at the Royal Show accompanied by support workers should prompt the question, “How much did that cost me?”, is particularly concerning.
If those supports are withdrawn or significantly reduced, who is expected to fill the gap?
Parents? Siblings? Other family members?
Families already provide an enormous amount of unpaid support to people with disability. We should be very cautious about assuming that they can simply absorb more, or that adults with disability should remain dependent upon their families for the opportunity to participate in ordinary community life.
There is also an important issue that the published clarification does not address.
The original column was printed and read by thousands of Western Australians. The offending online article has subsequently been edited, but that cannot undo what was originally published.
Readers of the printed article will not necessarily return to the online version to discover that the offending passages have been removed. Nor can a small “Corrections & Clarifications” notice, published subsequently and without clearly explaining what was wrong with the original comments, correct the impression left with those readers.
The original words remain on the printed page and, more importantly, in the minds of those who read them.
An apology for “any offence caused” also risks characterising the problem as the reaction of those who were offended, rather than acknowledging what was wrong with the publication itself.
This requires more than an apology for offence. It requires correction of the misinformation and acknowledgement of the harm caused to people with disability, NDIS participants and their families.
I therefore ask that The Sunday Times, The West Australia Newspapers and Seven West Media:
1. Publish a prominent and unequivocal apology to Western Australians with disability, NDIS participants and their families, acknowledging why the comments concerning NDIS participants and support workers were inappropriate.
2. Correct the factual impression created by the article, including making clear that NDIS funding does not pay for the ordinary costs of attending the Royal Show but may fund the disability-related assistance a participant requires to access and participate in the community.
3. Ensure that the correction and apology are afforded appropriate prominence, rather than being confined to a small corrections notice that many readers of the original article will never see.
4. Acknowledge the editorial responsibility for the publication of the piece. Given the nature of the comments and the fact that they passed through the editorial process before publication, I believe an apology should come not only from Mr Harvey but also from the senior editorial and organisational leadership responsible for the publication — including Editor-in-Chief Christopher Dore, Sunday Times Editor Adrian Lowe and Seven West Media WA Chief Executive Officer Maryna Fewster.
This is not about preventing robust commentary on the NDIS.
The Scheme involves substantial public expenditure and should be subject to rigorous scrutiny and public debate. Questions about its sustainability, administration, provider conduct, fraud, value and outcomes are legitimate.
But there is an important distinction between scrutinising the design and administration of the NDIS and portraying people with disability who use legitimate supports to participate in their community as a burden on taxpayers.
People with disability should not have to justify their presence at the Royal Show, at the shops, on public transport, in workplaces, at sporting events or anywhere else in our community simply because they require support to be there.
The measure of an inclusive community is not whether people with disability can participate only when doing so costs the rest of us nothing. It is whether they have the same opportunity as everyone else to live ordinary, connected lives in their community.
The harm caused by the original publication cannot be remedied simply by saying that offence was not intended. What was wrong needs to be acknowledged, what was inaccurate needs to be corrected, and the people affected deserve a genuine and public apology.
I would appreciate written confirmation that this complaint has been received and referred to the individuals named above, together with advice as to what further action The Sunday Times, West Australian Newspapers and Seven West Media intend to take to address the matters raised.
I would also welcome publication of this correspondence, or an appropriately edited version of it, as a Letter to the Editor. However, publication of the letter should not be regarded as a substitute for addressing this formal complaint and the request for a correction and apology.
