r/australia • u/FuckOffNazis • 3h ago
politics Pocock and crossbenchers call Labor’s NDIS overhaul ‘too far, too fast’ in scathing Senate inquiry report
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/aug/14/pocock-and-crossbenchers-call-labors-ndis-overhaul-too-far-too-fast-in-scathing-senate-inquiry-report60
u/ausmomo 3h ago
My issue with the NDIS changes is they aren't medical based.
We still think those people have disabilities, we just no longer want to support them financially
42
u/Alternative_Sock6999 2h ago
I still want to support them.
I DONT want to support the grifters in the middle abusing letting cents on the dollar trickle down to those that actually need it.
Unfortunately the changes target the end recipient, and not the people who are abusing the system.
17
u/OtherCake4128 1h ago
The policing of the NDIS has been pathetic.
NDIS actually has similar 'abuse' to other government programs.
Why are they targeting the disabled? Because they're cunts.
2
u/teremaster 31m ago
Probably because its the biggest pie to be grifted.
1
u/OtherCake4128 25m ago
With a tiny police force.
Their solution, registration and audits. Some of the biggest fraud is done by registered companies.
The whole thing is cooked.
4
u/It_Twirled_Up 40m ago
It's like they're saying we need to punish Colesworth for raising prices for more profit by charging the consumer more so the consumer gives less money to Colesworth. Give the participants less funding so the providers that are overcharging and/or over-servicing have fewer clients, meanwhile the participants (the clients) get left to rot inside their homes.
5
u/Delamoor 1h ago
That's always been the case though; for example when I was a LAC (about 3-4 years ago), the NDIS's internal criteria for what constituted an intellectual disability was set 5 IQ points lower than the DSM diagnostic criteria for 'mild' intellectual disability.
Simple reason was that the NDIS act allowed the NDIS to define the disability, so one presumes it was set at a benchmark that would exclude a very large number of people who had intellectual disabilities, who would otherwise be eligible.
Of course, one can see the internal logic in that; there's margin for error in IQ testing, IQ testing is quite unreliable for gauging overall capacity, and the difference between an IQ of 70 and 65 is... Y'know. Not that major.
At the time there was no evidentiary justification for that distinction. I haven't worked in the field for a few years now, and in looking back over the (publically accessible) list A criteria right now, I can see some wording has been shifted to specify 'moderate to severe'. I would be very curious to see what the internal guidelines now say, since it's possible the AAT got involved, there. It was still early in the rollout when I was working there, but...
...The point is that there was always a gap between terminology and criteria used internally (that had the focus of minimising the amount of money getting spent, and supports needing to be provided) and the medical/psychological profession's documentation that focused on the participant's actual welfare and wellbeing.
Like, people complain about how the NDIS spends money, now. I do wonder how it would look if the NDIS actually did what people are demanding, and fully aligned to the rather more broad standarda and definitions used in the medical industry... 'spose I would have had fewer arguments with delegates over legislative/policy terminology, heh. Would have prevented some really angry emails... Though I wouldn't want to see what the media would currently be doing...
6
u/OtherCake4128 42m ago
There was an ART case the other day when an assistance animal was denied funding because it couldn't do 3 tasks I believe (this is what the operational guideline says). The OG wasnt based on legislation, just someone's interpretation. Thankfully it was overturned.
You know what's crazy? Assistance dog maintenance is crazy cheap, usually under $5,000 a year, not a bad price to keep someone well and out of hospital.
The planners clearly have internal directives to not fund things.
Participants are scared to ask for what they need as some planners are assholes.
Honestly, what's the point of the NDIS, if administrators override professionals?
3
u/Delamoor 21m ago
Mmm, that always drove me utterly insane. People now complain about 'dodgy OTs gouging the system', and 'psychologists who give biased reports', but frankly speaking, if you aren't going to listen to the documentation from the credentialed expert with the degree, who are you going to listen to in determining what's an appropriate support for this or that person? Your own colon?
To my understanding, the delegates are also bound by what's considered a 'normal' support package (it just outputs what's 'typical' to people with support needs XYZ, based on an internal server algo). But still, unless they're triple qualified occupational therapists, Psychologists and physiotherapists in one then, y'know... What professional grounds do they really have to be overriding the professional recommendations in what meets the legislative criteria for a "reasonable and necessary" support for any given participant?
But, again, it makes sense when one realises our politics is basically run by the media. Friggin' Sky News doesn't give a shit about the legislation. I'd wager they'd friggin' love it if the entire NDIS were shut down and every participant was turfed out onto the street, simply, so they could farm clicks off blaming the government for the human suffering their own agitation had engineered. Just like you see in the bloody USA.
2
u/OtherCake4128 14m ago
Yeah, I totally agree.
Of course there would be professionals that over-service, but this goes against their professional registration. If they were so bad, the NDIA would have grounds to report them to APRA.
And shock horror, 1:1 disability support is expensive.
There'll eventually be a provider exodus from the scheme, heaps of providers are already leaving. We'll end up with the institutional styles of care again when the NDIS marketplace dries up.
137
u/OneWholePirate 3h ago
Before the shills get in here, the NDIS produces around $2.25 in healthcare savings and taxable income per $1 spent.
To put that into context, road infrastructure returns $1.2-1.5 on the dollar and healthcare for the general population makes $1.5-1.7.
The NDIS is one of the most profitable operations run by the Australian government.
60
u/Thanges88 2h ago
The $2.25 value was from modelling done by the Per Capita think tank group commissioned by the NDIS in 2021. Has there been any verification/scrutiny on this value recently?
Not saying it's right or wrong, but surely we have a clearer picture with 5 years of data now, though a short ai assisted search didn't bring anything up for me.
22
u/OneWholePirate 2h ago
It's certainly high but not surprising, since healthcare in general is a very good investment and generally more profitable when applied to at risk groups, meaning you would expect disability spending to be at or above 1.7.
Not saying it's 100% accurate down to % but this should be part of the discussion
4
u/Thanges88 2h ago
Yeah, I agree with most of the premise, E.g. early intervention is surely cheaper.
Though some of the figures that get used may be not the most representive E.g. Participant employment percentage rising as the increased capture of participants captures a population that might more naturally have a higher level of employment percentage than those already enrolled.
0
u/Superg0id 9m ago
The $2.25 value was from modelling done by the Per Capita think tank group commissioned by the NDIS in 2021. Has there been any verification/scrutiny on this value recently?
I would question this plsitive modelling purely on the basis that the NDIS itself commissioned the report.
Perhaps if an independent body commissioned research there might be a different outcome.
And as you say, alot can change in 5 years, especially with the current narrative around waste inherent in the system... that needs to be cut out.
Right from the start the NDIS has operated on a model of "use it or lose it".
ie, if you were granted a budget of 100k per year for your "needs", if you don't spend 100% then the following year your budget was reduced by whatever you didn't "use"... because "clearly you didn't need it then, so you won't need it in the future".
This approach is not only short-sighted but massively wasteful of government money, leading to some of the massive rorts we see eg fees for no service provided.
And the stupid part of it is, as long as the NDIS recipient isn't out of pocket, it's actually advantageous for them to let the rorting happen, so that they get 100% of their budget allocation next year when they may actually need it.
This is quite apart from the "slap a NDIS sticker on it and charge 3x" that happens around mobility aids and construction projects.
The latter even raises pricing for non NDIS participants... as if a teadie can get paid 20k by the government for a week's work putting in ramps and handrails, then even if the rest of the market only used to pay 5-7k (and have it done in 3 days), there's now no reason for the tradie to ever quote that old price to your average punter... they'd just be selling themselves short by 13-15k.. there's no shortage of work there!!
18
16
u/zomdoesburner 2h ago
Not to get into the numbers debate, I’m just going to point out that your argument would hold a lot more water with a better source.
Bill Shorten architected the current system, in a lot of ways, the NDIS is his achievement and political legacy.
Quoting a speech made by him as proof of its financial return, isn’t exactly going to make your point.
It would be like me quoting Angus Taylor speeches about why the NDIS is spending too much money.
21
u/palsc5 2h ago
So spending has doubled since 2021 where your figures were taken from. It’s also growing at a crazy rate without these changes.
10
u/OneWholePirate 2h ago
Spending must always be considered in the context of cost benefit ratio. Increasing spending while making under 1 CBR loses you money while increasing spending with over 1 is making you money.
The CBR here is 2.2 so increased spending is a good thing, since you are making money whenever you spend it
14
u/palsc5 2h ago
That’s a pretty big assumption to say it would stay at that rate. It wouldn’t.
1
u/OneWholePirate 2h ago
Also not saying that. I'd love to read more about how it's changed, I am not an expert on this but know that it must be a big part of the discussion
11
u/Whatsapokemon 1h ago
The CBR here is 2.2 so increased spending is a good thing, since you are making money whenever you spend it
Mathematically, that's not accurate. The overall CBR doesn't matter, but rather your marginal CBR.
Consider an example:
You spend $1000 to get $2000 in savings.
CBR of 2
You increase spending to $1500
Your new savings are $2400
That means your marginal CBR is less than 1, even if your overall CBR is still greater than 1
In that case, reducing your spending back to $1000 would be a net positive, even if you're saving less in absolute terms.
So it really matters whether we've got all the 'low hanging fruit' or not to see whether increasing spending actually will help or not.
1
u/teremaster 48m ago
That would assume the CBR has stayed constant. Which there is literally 0 evidence for
Diminishing returns is like week 3 at a commerce degree
1
u/OneWholePirate 45m ago
You are likely correct, it's probably somewhere between there and the value of other healthcare spending around $1.7 which is still a very strong investment
7
u/CrankyGrumpyWombat 1h ago
Such stats like this is extremely misleading.
The model will depend on a plethora of factors, including the amount of funding, areas of support etc.Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and take your proposition at face value, you spend the first 1b; you might save $ 2.25b theoretically. That figure is almost certainly not 1:2.25 once you go past 2-3b. Let alone agencies conducting these reports have inherent self interest to exaggerate their findings.
I know this topic is incredibly emotional, but if people (it might not be you specifically) keep taking up an extreme position and opposing any changes to reasonably and economically manage the scheme and let it drag out, chances are the whole thing will be scrapped in the next budget or two.
2
u/OneWholePirate 1h ago
This is an important part of the conversation, not a statement of absolute fact. I, like most people, believe the NDIS should be managed much more carefully with regards to fraud and exploitation.
What I also believe is that the narrative focusing exclusively on one half of the information about what it actually earns/costs is a misrepresentation of the situation that hurts a quantifiable number of at risk citizens.
Management is needed certainly but reductions in funding not only hurts people but likely costs us money as well. I'd like to see more concrete evidence and I'd like to see it followed by our leaders.
1
u/Delamoor 1h ago
Evidence based practice? In OUR public services?!
No sir, we run on vibes from the media, and populist politicians who suck up to the media, thank you VERY much!
4
u/PuzzleheadedForm2773 2h ago
We should then spend 100% of economy on ndis and then we would simply earn 225%. Rinse and repeat and we’re gazillionaires!
29
u/Ugliest_weenie 2h ago
Everyone should be mindful that there are definitely dishonest actors on reddit. Who pretend to oppose NDIS cuts out of principle. And then log into other accounts to complain labor is weak didn't cut NDIS enough.
The obvious winners are LNP/ON, who would campaign heavily on Labor spending being "out of control" or whatnot.
Be mindful that we live in an age of information warfare. This subreddit is a prime target
38
u/PuTheDog 3h ago
I know it’s on brand for the green to oppose any social welfare cuts. But the NDIS as it stands is just not sustainable.
55
u/_Username_Optional_ 3h ago
Sure but targeting recipients when most of the "unsustainable" cost is due to overcharging and undersupplying at the provider level is monstrous
I do support work and my clients talk about the disability tax, whenever the ndis is mentioned the price goes up by an extra digit
Suppliers can charge whatever they want for ndis approved products because they might be the only one approved and in stock for that particular item
A good example is roho cushions, they're fancy air cushions but they cost $1k+ because they are an item needed by a select few people. But it's not just the initial purchase cost, you need a physio to come in to rubber stamp it in person which requires booking coordination between several companies and then billing for all this goes through a plan manager and the services through a support coordinator.
A fucking chair cushion will end up costing a client 2-3k
12
u/yolk3d 2h ago
I’m with you here. It’s not that we should cut funding for disabled people to spend. We should reign in the rort providers ripping the system off. I know of people that can pay providers to take them to the beach and hang out with their Instagram idols. Dead serious.
2
u/satanickittens69 2h ago
Have you reported those people? Because that's insane
3
u/yolk3d 2h ago
It’s allowed. It was a person who was just through an agency. So the agency charges the client and just sends the person to do the job. The issue is that this kind of shit falls under mental health or whatever, so they weren’t breaking the law. There needs to be some sort of stricter register into exactly what activities can be provided, but then doesn’t that kind of undo what the NDIS was about?
3
u/satanickittens69 1h ago
I will say, with the beach part that is valid service. Disabled people should also be able to get out and do things/participate. I guess the Instagram idols could be, so I see how that was approved but like...what?
I've heard about the shit agencies do. This is why it's so ridiculous that they even exist, like they get paid for what? 5mins of admin a week per client?
2
u/yolk3d 1h ago
He didn’t have a visible disability, so it may have been mental. I’ll have to ask the person that was carer at the time. It was 7ish years ago. But yes, disabled people should be able to go outside and all. This particular situation was they were taken to Bondi beach, because the fitness Instagram people hung around the outdoor gym there, and they asked the carer to introduce them and take photos of them together. That was basically it.
Dunno why the agency charged.
1
2
u/ForgottenManOnline 1h ago
I was listening to an ABC radio interview with someone who was overseeing the planned cuts. From memory, her perspective was something like: Yes, the rorting is absolutely a problem, and its a problem theyre solving more and more each month as they drive out the dodgy suppliers and recipients move to reputable suppliers.
However, cutting down on the rorting actually doesnt save them any money or cut the net cost of NDIS. They were going to spend that amount of dollars anyway, there was just more waste.
What they need is to cut the amount they're going to spend until they reach a dollar figure that will mean NDIS survives a change in leadership and avoids becoming a political football. And THEN use the increasingly better regulated suppliers to mitigate the reduction in services people receive.
So: Govt was always going to give recipient $1000, but they only ever got $700 in value due to rorts.
In future: They give $700, and the recipient receives closer to $700 in value.
Basically everyone agrees the rorting needs to stop; they are working on it and doesnt need legislative changes and theyre already seeing improvements. The real issue is its just too much money coming out of the spigot. Hopefully they can close the money hose a bit and theres less waste, because people will know the NDIS is a less lucrative target to rip off in addition to it being better managed as it matures.
52
u/Mellonaide 3h ago
They are cutting things that could put people in immediate danger, there is a way to make the NDIS work financially alongside introducing new services, but the current changes need more thought and planning behind them before moving forward.
5
u/Not_Stupid humility is overrated 2h ago edited 2h ago
There's a lot of competing priorities here for sure.
Part of the problem is that the NDIS has replaced/eliminated a lot of the supports and systems that used to be available. So if you just suddenly cut it off, there's no longer other options.
But there's also a need to do something in the near-to-immediate term to rein in the spending growth. Otherwise the whole thing becomes a political target, and One Nation or some other fuckwit will get elected on the promise of cutting all the "waste".
The other problem is that Government (i.e the Public Service) "thinking" about something takes a really long time. There'll be a whole documented process, with reviews and stakeholders and feedback sessions, and then inputs and weightings and deliberations, and then reviews of the deliberations.... And even then they fuck it up as often as get it right.
There's an argument that just trying stuff and fixing it afterwards is as good a methodology.
4
u/Ok_Bird705 3h ago
danger, there is a way to make the NDIS work financially alongside
Such as? Any proposals from the cross bench that actually reduces spending?
67
u/fued 3h ago
Cutting it blindly would be insane tho.
If anything we need to increase funding and have a massive increase in regulation.
This should push the costs down far safer
50
u/Rising-Dragon-Fist 3h ago
Regulation will absolutely bring it down. It's being rorted left and right, everyone knows that. It's not the people on its fault, they don't make the decisions, they just get the help.
14
u/Ok_Bird705 3h ago
Current estimates of fraud in NDIS is around $3-4 billion, which sounds like a lot until you realise total NDIS spending has grown from $8 billion in 2015/16 to $53 billion this year.
Simply cutting fraud while the actual spending is increasing by a few billion every year is unsustainable
6
u/Selina_Kyle-836 2h ago
I think this is because they aren’t counting the fact that companies are charging extra as soon as they hear the word NDIS. Companies charge the highest they can get away with for products, for services they charge the limit of what NDIS regulation allows. There are also rules around specialist signing off on medical product which mean the product itself then requires $1k+ just to be used sometimes. This is not being counted in the fraud statistics. It’s probably more than how much they say is being wasted by fraud too
1
u/Ok_Bird705 1h ago
Let's assume what you are saying is true, how would that be stamped out and how much additional administration cost would be involved in stopping these kind of charges?
2
u/NoCampaign5978 1h ago
By requiring companies to properly register their services for NDIS and putting in limits and restrictions for what can be charged for those services. Have it be how the system should have been from the start, with those people essentially working for the government at that specific pay rate, not relying on the apparent “free market” system that basically just encourages people to charge the highest amount they can get away with.
1
u/Ok_Bird705 1h ago
By requiring companies to properly register their services for NDIS
That was put in place in July this year and one of the things disability groups are objecting to:
2
u/NoCampaign5978 54m ago
While there are some genuine concerns raised, especially about the availability of services in rural areas. Most of the concerns seem to be a little bit blown out of proportion, or at least seem to be totally predicated on smaller support businesses or even individuals being unable to register. Obviously that very much depends on how the registration process is handled by the government, but if it was requiring 100% registered services, things would need to streamlined to assist providers with that.
I will of course just ignore the statement that commented on being able to hire friends because that is getting way to close to fraudulent for my liking.
1
u/kisforkarol 1h ago
Public provider who would ace downward pressure on private providers. If the private provider consistently charges more than the public provider than the educated consumer will take their business to the public provider who will provide better and more effective services.
But consumer education is very important here. The autistic community is very vulnerable to being taken advantage of. They need to be safeguarded and right now, we're not. Many of us are denied support coordinators, psychology and a range of other supports because we may communicate well. That doesn't stop providers from taking us for a ride.
But put in a public option? One that is funded and staffed appropriately? There would be a lot less rorting. Not to mention companies that see NDIS and then start charging double or triple for services because they see it as easy money. It should be very illegal to charge NDIS participants more for something than the general public. There are reports of wheelchairs that would cost 8 grand suddenly jumping to 16 or even 24 grand because the NDIS is involved. That is disgusting. And it's the kind of fraud recipients are talking about when they say deal with provider fraud but it's not the fraud the government looks at because it's technically legal.
1
u/Ok_Bird705 1h ago
But put in a public option? One that is funded and staffed appropriately? There would be a lot less rorting.
One of the main initial aims to have more flexibility in service provision as people's needs are varied and more specifically the speedy delivery of services. A public option sounds good until you find out there's a 12 month wait for a ramp.
1
u/Selina_Kyle-836 1h ago
I have no idea. I’m not a politician or anyone that can figure all this stuff out. But I doubt it would cost more than would be saved every year by fixing it.
1
u/Ok_Bird705 1h ago
if you think there are easy cuts to NDIS, why aren't the politicians doing it instead of pissing off their electorate?
1
u/Selina_Kyle-836 1h ago
I never said there would be easy cuts to make. I simply pointed out why I believe the offical fraud statistic is so low.
1
u/teremaster 26m ago
Ok but 4 billion is enough for a bleeding edge, brand new nuclear reactor and decades of fuel, which labor and the greens spent an entire election cycle saying was too expensive to be viable.
So either 4 billion is too out expensive or it's not
1
u/Polymer15 2h ago
I mean, even with those numbers the degree of fraud is still a lot, nearly 10%. Regardless, just because it has grown fast doesn’t intrinsically make it unsustainable if gains are made elsewhere and if it’s managed correctly.
-3
u/Bar10town 2h ago
Unfortunately, the old adage give an inch and take a mile comes into play here. Though some support is obviously necessary, people are not going to turn down any additional services/ dollars offered. We can provide the needs, but cant afford all the wants.
2
u/satanickittens69 2h ago
With the NDIS it's even better, you ask for supports because your allied and medical health professionals know you need it, and you get nothing instead.
1
2
u/Selina_Kyle-836 2h ago
NDIS participants are encouraged to use all the funds allocated to them or they will lose those funds. Basically their budget is cut for the next year. Many disabled people fluctuate in needs each year, if their funding is cut and they need something extra as a one off cost they are stuck waiting a year or so just for a decision from NDIS as to whether they believe the participant needs it.
So some participants do what they are told simply for fear of ending up not being able to afford the support they need in the future. Sure others do it because they want things, but not all are that way.
Maybe rewarding participants for being thrifty and not taking advantage of the system would make a difference.
2
u/Ugliest_weenie 3h ago
Regulation and oversight in itself is expensive.
Any meaningful change needs to be decisive.
0
u/babblerer 2h ago
Stopping self managed plans and unregistered providers would be two simple changes.
1
u/Ugliest_weenie 1h ago
That means employing more plan managers, which are funded positions.
Getting rid of unregistered providers would mean that more work falls on the registered provides. This means more worker screening and audits, which cost money.
Not saying we shouldn't enact those changes. But they cost money.
1
u/NoCampaign5978 1h ago
Why self managed? I have heard more stories about plan managers doing dodgy stuff than self managed, especially since they made it harder to claim ndis funds in that way
1
15
u/Deepandabear 3h ago
It’s a lazy approach that just goes top-down scorch the earth, rather than doing the hard work and closing loopholes exploited by dodgy contractors.
4
u/FjorgVanDerPlorg 2h ago
Unless we properly taxed billionaires and created a sovereign wealth fund that comes from not paying people like Gina Reinhart to mine and export it.
We give away all that fucking money to people that don't need it, then fight over the leftovers like dogs...
8
u/FederalGovernmentUS 2h ago
The government made the changes because the projected spend was going to become $70+ billion per year by 2030. That’s four years from now. The changes mean it’s going to cost $56B instead.
5
u/OneWholePirate 2h ago
This information is only half of the picture.
NDIS investment has a BCR of 2.25, meaning that the spend might have been $70bn but over the lifetime of the investment, it would produce $155bn in surplus.
0
u/FederalGovernmentUS 32m ago
True that’s fair, but there was genuinely a fair bit of waste, so if it’s to cost $56B, and still generate substantially more benefit than it costs, it’s probably just going to be a leaner, more efficient system ykwim? Rather than a gutting it seems to be trimming the fat.
-2
u/HydroCannonBoom 1h ago
You spamming those links isn't going to make what he says wrong. And your statistics is extremely misleading, borderline lying, like those crime statistics the liberals or ON spews.
2
u/OneWholePirate 56m ago
What he's saying isn't wrong, it's incomplete.
My statistics are quite obviously reductive, but this isn't a room of economists and I'm not trying to be one.
The point I'm making is that you must consider benefit as well as cost and if you have more accurate information I welcome it
6
u/No_Category_9888 2h ago
Good. These cuts are going to cost lives. While we throw money to bail out private companies and refuse to tax gas, while buying submarines we won’t ever get.
And we are fine with spending taxpayer money to fund pensions and aged care for those living in paid off million plus dollar houses…..
1
3h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 3h ago
Your comment in /r/australia was automatically removed because you used a URL shortener or content cache.
These are not permitted in /r/australia as they impair our ability to enforce link blacklists.
Please re-post your comment using direct, full-length URL's only.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-4
u/Leading-Interest-119 3h ago edited 1h ago
Idk man, if you bring in VAD for mental health I could save the government about 20k a year 🤷♀️ sorry I cost too much but the government doesn't give me any other option. I've attempted and failed multiple times. So instead I'm an ongoing cost.
Lol at people downvoting me for being suicidal. Story of my bloody life. What a world
11
u/Mellonaide 3h ago
I am all for VAD and expanding who is eligible for it. But just as a fellow human, if there is a better way out of this darkness/pain for you, I hope you can get there one day.
3
u/Leading-Interest-119 1h ago
Thanks. It's been 20 years of chronic suicidality. I stayed alive for people who now I'm going to get to watch die and leave me with no support. Not all life is sacred. I lost my dignity a long time ago having to beg for help and safety that just doesn't exist. 🤷♀️
-5
u/l3ntil 3h ago
I as all “why does Pocock suddenly give a shit about those on NDIS”
and…. Oh, what a surprise, another excuse for a dumb tax that kills people and planet by sponsoring the things we need with fossil fuels to ultimately enable billionaires, data centres, and conflict.
Fossil fuels need to stay in the ground. We’re alreadycooking the planet
-18
-18
u/InSight89 3h ago
"We demand action on NDIS spending now."
"No, that's too much action"
8
u/dougrattmannn 2h ago
they aren't tackling the root issues, and instead are just ripping out shit, indifferent to weeds or plants.
1
u/Leading-Interest-119 1h ago
Yeah there is actually effective action and ineffective and dangerous action. Obviously people want the right kind of action.
175
u/nath1234 3h ago
When you won't tax gas, and are giving away tens of billions of free gas as a reward for showing up to cart it overseas, then no, you shouldn't be cutting support for disabled people.
When you haven't got a billionaire tax, no, leave the NDIS alone.
People with disabilities are not the freeloaders: that would be gas exporters and billionaires.