What's the Government Trying to Do With the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Is It Going to Work? [S2-09]

Show Notes

Please leave a comment, particularly if you have your own “Why can’t they just…” question, or email us at whycanttheyjust@gmail.com. We’d love to hear from you.

Find out more about us and how you can support us at ⁠⁠⁠https://whycanttheyjust.com.au/⁠⁠, which includes a link to our Patreon site where you can sign up for exclusive content.

Please also feel free to rate and review us, as it does help people to find us.

Music: “Insurrection”
Written by Pierre Chrétien
Performed by the Soul Jazz Orchestra
Courtesy of Do Right Music Inc.

Transcript

link to podcast

8 July 2026

Luke
Welcome to another episode of Why Can’t They Just, discussing politics, policy and getting stuff done. I’m Luke Robertson, a member of the Labor Party, as well as a conservation biology and environmental policy student.

Janaline
I’m Janaline Oh, I’m also a member of the Labor Party. I’m a former diplomat and a climate, environment and anti-racism activist.

Before we start, I’d like to acknowledge that we are all recording this on the unceded lands of First Nations people in Australia, recognising that sovereignty was never ceded, we pay our respects to their Elders, past and present, and extend those respects to any First Nations listeners that we have today.

Luke
Well today we have a very special guest. Andy Shim has been on the National Autism Strategy Oversight Council and is active in disability advocacy. Andy is also a member of the Community and Public Sector Union accessibility network as well as a union delegate.

Andy
Hello, hello, thank you for having me today. Excited to have this conversation.

Luke
Today we are talking about the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the NDIS for short, probably the largest and most ambitious and most innovative social policy initiative ever undertaken in Australia. Like all policy initiatives, the NDIS did not just appear from thin air to provide a solution to a situation that had just arisen.

Let’s do a quick walk through the history of disability support by Australian governments going back to Federation.

In the early 1900s, there was no structured government support for people with a disability. Support came largely from families, charities and some government-run institutions. In 1908, the Deakin Labor government introduced the Invalid Pension to support people who could not work due to a disability. This was a major step, although it still saw disability as a medical issue with institutionalisation common. It was something to be managed, rather than tied to rights and inclusion.

World War Two saw large numbers of soldiers returning with disabilities, and the need for more structured support was apparent. The predecessor of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, which operated until 2015, was created in 1941 by the Curtin Labor government, and saw the government take a more active role. Disability was still seen as a problem that needed to be treated or fixed, generally through centralised services and institution-based care.

By the 1960s and 70s, a new way of thinking emerged, with people questioning the role of institutions and whether they were doing more harm than good, particularly by isolating people. More importantly, people with disabilities began speaking out for themselves. Advocacy grew and disability started to be recognised, not just as a medical issue, but as a social and political one.

1981 was the International Year of Disabled Persons, which brought a new focus through respect for rights, community integration and improved service standards. This was reflected in the Disability Services Act, introduced in 1986 by the Hawke Labor government. The Commonwealth and state governments also started to divide responsibilities. This was supposed to improve coordination but in fact resulted in discrepancies based on location.

By the early 2000s, the systems had become very fragmented. Places were limited and some people were left waiting for support, sometimes for years. Families were carrying an enormous burden. In 2011, the Productivity Commission identified the system was underfunded, inefficient and failing to meet the needs of Australians with disability. The Productivity Commission recommended a new approach: a national insurance scheme. In 2013, the Gillard Labor government introduced the National Disability Insurance Scheme, with support from the Opposition.

So, my question for you, Janaline and Andy: these different approaches over the years show that policy doesn’t always occur in a vacuum and reflects the society and values at play at any given time. Is there good alignment now between the values of Australian society in 2026 and the NDIS?

Janaline
I think the intent of the National Disability Insurance Scheme is very much away from the institutionalised model, and it is about investing in supporting and caring for people with disability to enable them to have the fullest and most active lives possible, to be productive members of the society. I think those do align with contemporary values. I think it really shows - I mean you just went through the pretty awful history of treatment of people with disability in Australia. I think it really does show a shift in thinking in the society about how we treat people with disability, and the degree of inclusion that society is willing to offer. And I’d like to think that in the current society, we do want to be inclusive, we do want to make sure that people can participate in the community and have good lives.

But I am going to throw to Andy, because Andy has lived experience of this and he’s also been deeply involved in the policy advocacy space.

Andy
Thank you for that segue. I genuinely to this day still believe in the value proposition and the original intention and spirit behind the NDIS and its alignment with values. As was mentioned earlier, the National Disability Insurance Scheme was established in effect to uphold the rights of people with disability. In the legislation itself, it mentions that one of the purposes of the scheme is to actually give into effect Australia’s treaty obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability and to recognise that people with disability have a right to not only exist but also to thrive and survive, much like any other Australian in society. I genuinely believe, not only as an advocate who’s been active in the trade union movement, but also as a person with disability, that people with disability - we are not liabilities around which to retrofit, but rather assets into which to invest. And it is programs such as the NDIS that enable people with disability to demonstrate we have so much to offer to Australian society, whether it was in 2013 when the scheme was first introduced, or in 2026.

Janaline
Thanks Andy, I would just like to add to that. I mean, the reason it’s called the National Disability Insurance Scheme is because the whole concept of it is not as some sort of welfare scheme to look after these poor people, it’s about an investment in members of our community to enable them to have the best lives possible. But it’s also an investment in the society to ensure that we are inclusive and that we can get the benefit of full participation of all members of the community. I think that is actually really important.

Luke
The NDIS is a huge scheme with over 750,000 participants. Reports vary about how well it is working both for individuals, their families and at the system level. Participants report more choice and control over their lives. Many can now participate more in the community and receive support that was not previously available. But like in any large system, it can be complex and difficult to navigate. There are always people looking to exploit the system for their own financial gain, usually at the expense of others. The government is looking to make changes to the scheme to ensure its long term sustainability and to eliminate fraud and corruption. Are they going about it the right way?

Andy
When the NDIS is working well, it’s not only centering people with disability and their loved ones at the crux of the legislation and its operations but it’s also taking into account its interfaces and impacts upon not only staff within the National Disability Insurance Agency but also its impacts on the disability sector as a whole. When it’s working well, the NDIS is a scheme that is providing genuine value for money supports for people with disability, their loved ones and their carers. When it’s working well, it is providing access to social, economic, community and health care outcomes that were previously out of reach for many people with disability. When it is working well, it is acknowledging some of the issues that were flagged by the Disability Royal Commission and is making genuine impacts to shift the dial.

We know from the Disability Royal Commission for example that people with disability are experiencing high rates of deaths through domestic partner violence, deaths through poorer health outcomes, deaths that are often entirely preventable. The NDIS when it’s working well is not only allowing people to thrive; it’s actually saving the lives of those of us who have a disability. Remember one in five Australians have a disability. It is schemes like the NDIS that allow that cohort and that population to actually live the lives that they deserve. The question is whether something that is working well in theory is also working well in practice.

Janaline
Yeah I think the question really comes to a bigger question of sort of delivery of government programs and I mean governance generally. I mean, one of the things that we talked about when we talked about public renewables was how do government institutions deliver things effectively and efficiently? And I think it comes to things like making sure that agencies are properly staffed, that staff are properly trained, that the systems that they’re implementing are designed in a way, and in this case as Andy says, that is very centered on the people that the systems are supposed to be serving, which is the participants.

I know there’s been a lot of concern about potential rorting and fraud, not by claimants, not by people with disability, but principally by providers. So there have been various reports of people purporting to offer disability services massively overcharging or charging for services that they’re not actually delivering. I think it’s really really important for both the sustainability of the system and also for its social licence that the government take that very seriously and deal with it. Having said that, the government’s put on the table a heap of reforms that are deeply controversial.

So the government is arguing that its legislative reforms are about cutting the ballooning cost of the NDIS in a way that will ensure that it’s sustainable for generations. That it will not lead to a situation where it has to be shut down because it is too costly or too unwieldy. Look, I agree with that, I think the NDIS absolutely has to be sustainable. And I think it also has to be refocused on its original intention. So originally the NDIS was not supposed to replace all of the state-funded and state-run community support services for people with mild or temporary disability. It was supposed to really focus on people with severe and permanent disability to enable them to have, you know, meaningful and productive lives. But at the same time, it was supposed to live alongside other support.

In 2013, when the National Disability Insurance Scheme came in I feel like the state governments kind of said ‘oh, yippee, the Commonwealth’s going to take all this over’ and they kind of dropped the ball on their part of the bargain. And now we’ve got to the point where the Commonwealth’s saying ‘ner, this wasn’t what we signed up for and let’s have a look back at what this was supposed to be and bring it back’. I think that is a legitimate objective. But I think the Commonwealth perhaps has not designed and implemented its reforms in the best possible way. And I’m now going to ask Andy to give us his view on that.

Andy
Oh gosh, the NDIS is, year on year, as most people have identified, growing at quite a fast speed. For example, the total cost of the NDIS for 2025-26 is expected to be almost $54 billion. There has been a focus very much in our media narratives around fraud, especially fraud conducted by providers to people with disability and that this fraud is ballooning out costs. And as both a person with disability and as an advocate, I fully acknowledge that there is a very real need to tackle fraud. For example there have been some very horrific stories about NDIS participants experiencing modern slavery, and being treated as cash cows by horrifying providers. There have been stories about providers who are essentially rorting the scheme. I understand that tackling fraud and making the scheme more sustainable for future generations is a large crux behind this current legislation that has been proposed.

However, I think we have to be quite clear-eyed about how successful and effective this proposed reform will be at meeting its objectives. I believe Treasury has estimated savings of less than $1 billion over four years, which would be only 2% of the savings from this reform package, or 0.5% of the total scheme cost. A large part of the proposed saving of, I believe it’s $37.8 billion, the large majority of that is actually cuts to the budgets of people with disability themselves, rather than savings coming from addressing fraud directly.

And as you’ve already mentioned, Janaline, there are genuine concerns from the disability community whether these proposed reforms by the Commonwealth will have unintentional consequences, whether these are short term gains that will have long term impacts. I mean, as you’ve mentioned yourself Janaline, the states and territories have, during the implementation of the scheme, wound back many of the supports, the quote-unquote Tier Two supports, for many people with disability that existed before the establishment of the NDIS. And the state and territory disability ministers are obviously working on programs such as foundational supports and the Thriving Kids initiatives to prepare for this transition period. Is the Commonwealth jumping the gun a little too early? The question is whether some of these proposed reforms, should they return to the drawing board, because I do think there are some serious concerns with how some of these proposed reforms may have a devastating and outsized impact on the people, the very people that the scheme is purporting to protect and serve.

Janaline
Yeah, I think the states and territories were obviously pretty blunt in their submission to the current Senate inquiry into this amended legislation. So as part of a deal made with the government to pass its tax reform as outlined in the budget, the Australian Greens have secured a commitment from the government to extend the Senate inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme amendment legislation by another couple of months. The submissions so far to that inquiry have been deeply critical of the pace of reform, of a lot of the elements that the government is proposing. And I think particularly as you say, Andy, some of those elements relating to how the Minister or the National Disability Insurance Agency can actually cut programs.

But the states and territories basically put in a joint submission which was very short, and which essentially said ‘we are all keen to make this work, and we are all working on it, but we are not going to be able to deliver this within the timeframe that the Commonwealth is asking. And we will need another 12 to 18 months to actually put in place the kinds of community and state-based support that the Commonwealth is asking of us’, to ensure that people have something real and functioning to transition into, and so that they don’t just kind of fall into some kind of black hole where the NDIS funding stops, but the state schemes aren’t yet ready to receive them.

Andy
Ah, where do I begin? I think it’s not unreasonable to say that, if any changes to NDIS eligibility were to be proposed, that those eligibility reforms should take into consideration the flow-on effects that they may have in terms of where are those people who were previously on NDIS going to go? There is a very real fear that people with disability who were previously on NDIS will then begin to shift into state and territory health systems, especially state and territory mental health systems. Many of our hospitals, health systems and community mental health systems are already at capacity. To have a whole swath of people be removed from the NDIS - over 100,000 people - to then go to state and territory systems which are not yet ready for them to arrive, that flow-on effect may overwhelm their own systems that are already at capacity. Many of the state and territory stakeholders have been quite frustrated at what they are perceiving, that the Commonwealth, in order to make savings in their own budget are now shifting and passing the buck onto the state and territory budgets. And potentially enacting a huge cost, not only to the budgets and the services of the states and territories, but also a huge cost to the people with disability themselves, many of whom are going to have no home or safe haven to land upon. So it is a question of how urgent are these reforms needing to happen? Does it really need to happen right now? Can these reforms wait until the foundational supports and Thriving Kids initiatives have been completely co-designed.

Janaline
Yeah, I think one of the important things to keep sight of in all of this discussion about shifting things from one budget to another budget is that there are actually human beings here, involved. That …

Andy
Absolutely.

Janaline
… people’s disabilities don’t disappear if they come off the NDIS. They are still living with the same conditions and constraints and issues that they had while they were on the NDIS. And so, if they come off the NDIS before the states and territories are ready with programs to integrate them into, what happens to those people? And I guess the crux of the state submission was, the fear is that what happens to those people is that they end up in hospital emergency departments, or they end up overwhelming state mental health systems, or state health care systems. Because the disabilities and the issues don’t go away, they’re still there, it’s just that the thing that had been supporting them before is no longer there, and the thing that the government, the Commonwealth government is hoping to have receive them isn’t ready.

The government, clearly, has a budget issue, and it is the responsibility of a democratically elected government to manage the nation’s finances and to manage the economy in a responsible way. At the same time, it is also a fundamental responsibility of a government, and I would say particularly a Labor government that purports to promote social justice and people-centred values, to ensure that it keeps sight of the humans that are going to be affected by all of this.

Andy
Absolutely. Something that I think has been quite missing in many of the discussions about NDIS is just how much of a human cost these blunt short term savings may have on the people who are within the NDIS. The NDIS at the end of the day was designed specifically to invest in people with disability so that they could then participate and contribute to society. However, some of these proposed changes, especially those around automated decision making have some of the same notes, dare I say, as the Robodebt situation that happened less than a decade ago. And I would caution any government to consider whether any short term cost savings will have a long term impact on a vulnerable cohort as the Robodebt Royal Commission had illustrated.

Janaline
So just for listeners who missed the dramatic events of a few years ago, the Robodebt Royal Commission was a commission of inquiry into the previous government’s way of administering social security payments, where assessments were made by an automated system. There was a lack of human oversight in the system and a lot of people had essential support withdrawn for inappropriate reasons. And it led to devastation in people’s lives. There are at least a couple of families who claim that their loved ones took their own lives because of Robodebt. And, yeah, I think it is a massive cautionary tale for any government that wants to look at automation of systems that deliver for vulnerable members of the community.

I think it is pretty interesting that the main focus - I mean it’s not surprising - but the main focus of the union submission, so the Community and Public Sector Union that Andy is a delegate for, put in a submission on behalf of its members outlining their concerns about the lack of human oversight in some of the proposed changes. And their concern that, firstly, that could lead to an increased workload because of the requests for review of decisions that an automated system might have made that people consider unfair. And also just a human concern that these automated systems could be making decisions that have pretty profound impacts on people’s lives, and the people administering the systems have no control over it and are deeply concerned about those impacts.

Andy
I’m so glad that you brought up the CPSU submission, Janaline, to the Senate inquiry because, as mentioned in the CPSU submission, three out of five staff have concerns about increased errors from expanded automation, particularly in eligibility assessments. The proposals for automated decision making within this legislation, the lack of human oversight manifest in this legislation, is very much reminiscent of Robodebt. And it is quite concerning for both staff within the public service as well as for people with disability that perhaps the lessons from Robodebt have not been taken into account.

The Robodebt Royal Commission for example recommended that there needs to be a consistent legal framework in which automation in government services can operate, and that any sort of automated decision making when implemented must have: one, a clear path for those affected by those decisions to seek review; two, that departmental websites must have clear and transparent information about how that automated decision making will be used and explaining how those processes will work. In the proposed legislation, if say an automated decision is made, that decision is not reviewable.

And we know the human cost that arose. People lost their lives as a direct consequence of automated decision making to enact short term cost savings.

Janaline
Yeah, I reckon just one last thing to say about Robodebt is that it was introduced as a budgetary saving measure and ended up costing the government quite a lot more because of the catastrophe that unfolded that led to some very very significant lawsuits in the end, so it didn’t even end up saving any money.

Andy
People within the public service are already raising alarm bells about the potential dangers and ramifications that may happen if we do not put in the guardrails that are required and if we do not put in the human oversight that is required.

Luke
It seems that, as we head towards the third decade of the NDIS in the 2030s, the core idea is that the NDIS should be a stand-alone scheme. Not something that is all things to all people but that it is part of a whole system approach to disability support. So that means it is smaller, but that it is more intensive support for those who need it the most. The broader ecosystem in which it will sit will include community programs, early intervention services, family support, and peer support and inclusion activities to take the pressure off the NDIS and provide earlier support to people with lower or emerging needs. But there will also be a need to have better financial oversight to make it sustainable, otherwise - sorry, to make it financially sustainable, otherwise it will not survive politically.

In short, the vision is that it should be scheme that focuses on those with the highest needs with a broader system that supports everyone else. Smarter, not necessarily bigger. You guys have touched on this a little bit so far, but do you guys think that this vision for the NDIS is going to take us into a better future, or is it a recipe for the fragmentation and inequity of access of the past?

Janaline
I reckon that vision is the right one. I think the idea of the NDIS, the Commonwealth part of the intervention, being smaller, contained to the people who really need it most, who really need that intensive support the most. And for everybody else to be captured by community programs and state and territory programs. I don’t think it has to lead to fragmentation as long as the states and territories and the Commonwealth keep communicating effectively. What I would say though, is that that depends on that more intense, smaller system being designed so that it actually delivers what it needs to deliver. I think what we’ve heard from the Senate inquiry and also from Andy is the concern that, firstly, the states and territories are just not quite ready. And this could just mean, instead of implementing the program immediately, the Commonwealth just needs to take a step back, suck up the lack of budget savings for another year, and put in place a system that will actually deliver that lower level of support that the states and territories will then hopefully be in a position to provide.

And I would say in terms of sucking up the lack of budget saving, I think it would be a false economy to press ahead with a scheme when the states and territories aren’t ready, because what is very very expensive is hospital emergency departments and emergency psychiatric help and emergency mental health support. And the cost of displacing all of those other people that are currently using all of those systems because people who had previously been supported by the NDIS are now flooding it because the states and territories aren’t ready to deal with them. I think another thing that needs to be considered by the government is losing the trust of the disability community, of the staff in the agencies, of you know health professionals and the states and territories if they rush ahead with a thing that people feel is not properly thought through and that doesn’t take into account the other things that need to be in place before it actually finalises the implementation.

Andy
Absolutely. In order to illuminate I think the human cost of it, I may use an anecdote for which I have received consent to share. So during my time co-designing Australia’s National Autism Strategy, I had the immense privilege to meet a wide variety of Australians, including autistic Australians. We knew that autistic Australians, for example, had a life expectancy 20-39 years shorter than the average, and that many autistic people were NDIS participants.

There was one story that really stuck with me of an autistic person who was asked by the NDIA to stay in hospital for another two to three months so that the agency could have more time to design their NDIS plan. By a cost benefit analysis, if the agency had released the plan a month or two earlier, it would have saved the state government at least a couple of thousands of dollars. And it’s stories like that that really stick with me that any changes in actions or inactions by the Commonwealth can have flow-on effects not only to people with disability themselves, but also the state and territory systems that are not the appropriate place to be supporting them. A hospital ward is not the appropriate place for say an autistic person to be staying in for say two to three months at a time. That is taking up a bed space from someone else who might need it. And in turn it is the waiting in hospital beds that is actually worsening life outcomes and health outcomes for many people with disability, not improving them.

Janaline
Yeah, I reckon that’s a really powerful anecdote.

The other important thing that Andy alluded to in the Robodebt context is the guardrails. It’s ensuring that that small intensive system is working properly, and that means having proper systems in place to ensure that the best decisions are made, and that there is rigour and accountability in those decisions. Because again I come back to the union submission. One of the things that came out from that is that union members are very keen on the idea of automation of routine tasks, but they are deeply concerned about the idea of automating decision making that can actually affect people’s lives.

From a nerdy admin law point of view, the idea of non-reviewable government decisions alarms me a lot, because administrative review is one of the most essential things in any legislation, in any decision making process to ensure that there is accountability, and to ensure that you can’t have capricious, arbitrary decisions that affect people’s lives.

Andy
Another example of overreach in this legislation is its proposal for delegation of ministerial powers. What this legislation is essentially proposing is that the minister would be given more and expanded powers to, for example, reduce available funding in specific parts of participant plans, such as community, social and community participation funding. It would grant the minister power to permit automated decision making across scheme functions and would grant the minister a decision making power that otherwise would need to go to parliament.

Governments change. These are the sort of powers that I think the current government should keep in mind, whether those powers can be exploited by say a different government.

Luke
What I’m hearing from all of this is that there’s a lot of powers that are given to the minister to enact subordinate legislation that could have very big impacts. Do you think in the current legislative package there are appropriate guardrails to prevent as you discuss things like Robodebt, but also ministers in future governments which may not value the opinions of disabled people at the same level as other governments. How does this legislation set up the appropriate guardrails to prevent that sort of thing? Or how should it, rather, is the question.

Andy
FIrstly, it doesn’t. In the over 4,000 that the Senate inquiry received, one of the submissions was actually from the Commonwealth Ombudsman itself, which raised explicitly some of the concerns about automated decision making. The Commonwealth Ombudsman had released a practice guide about automated decision making and the importance of implementing guardrails and recommendations flagged by the Royal Commission into Robodebt and the Disability Royal Commission. Automated decision making is not an isolated issue. We’re seeing in the aged care space where we’ve heard of many cases of claim in aged care being knocked back due to an automated decision making process. It is a very real and persistent danger, especially as we progress into a new era of an increasing reliance on technology.

The sort of guardrails that must be implemented into this legislation are human oversight. There needs to be firstly increased resourcing to actually match the ambition of the reform agenda so that there can be effective human oversight. Secondly, there needs to be clear frameworks around how automated decision making, if it will be made, how it will be implemented. And thirdly, some sort of independent oversight entity to actually monitor the implementation of these proposed NDIS reforms, so that people are not essentially marking their own homework. Are the people responsible for developing and implementing policy reforms also the ones who are responsible for auditing and monitoring those policy reforms.

Luke
Well I think today we’ve had some, a good discussion, but I think Andy’s really highlighted so many of the glaring issues that exist within this package. And I think there’s a lot of concern there and I think there should be some time to take a breath and start from scratch again. So I wonder if either of you have any final statements that you’d like to share?

Andy
The motto of the disability community is nothing about us without us. And what that goes to the heart of is that any sort of ambitious policy reform has to be done with people with disability. Many of the stakeholders felt blindsided by the announcements. Consultation, when it’s working well, is about actually listening more and talking less, and trying to take into account the lived experience of the people whose lives you may be impacting through your policy proposals. I would recommend that the NDIS reforms, including the accountability guardrails that I’ve mentioned really be co-designed with the people whom these policy proposals will impact.

Janaline
I think it is that principle about nothing about us without us that is actually quite important in every sort of decision making. This is the whole reason that you have stakeholder consultation because fundamentally, who knows better about what will work for people with disability, than people with disability and their carers?

I think the fundamental framework and the fundamental objective of this reform is sound. I don’t think they need to scrap the whole thing and start again. But I do think they need to look really carefully at particularly those issues around accountability, around guardrails for ministerial and administrative decision making around the kinds of decisions that it is ok for an automated system to make and the kinds of decisions that humans need to have clear oversight over.

And they also need to look at what is the whole environment? Because if you’re talking about having the National Disability Insurance Scheme be that very focused, intensive support for the people who need it most, you need to look at the rest of that environment, the rest of the context that that is sitting in. And that is the states and territories, that is the community support, that is all of that other stuff that needs a bit of time to be put in place so that it can function effectively. I really hope the government takes the opportunity to start to listen, as Andy said, listen deeply to the feedback that is coming from the community, and to look at the real and legitimate concerns.

And hopefully we will see at the end of it a functioning and sustainable National Disability Insurance Scheme into the future.

Luke
That wraps up another episode of Why Can’t They Just? Our theme music for this program is a piece called Insurrection by Pierre Chrétien, performed by the Soul Jazz Orchestra, courtesy of Do Right Music Inc.

Janaline
You can also hear us on Canberra community radio 2XX FM 98.3 on Tuesdays between 6 and 7 or via 2XXFM.org.au. Or, if you’d like to know more about us and how to support us, go to our website whycanttheyjust.com.au.

Luke
I’m Luke Robertson.

Janaline
I’m Janaline Oh, and this is Why Can’t They Just?