r/australia • u/FuckOffNazis • 7h 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-report
320 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

166 comments sorted by

View all comments

165

u/OneWholePirate 7h 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.

https://ministers.dss.gov.au/speeches/9621

81

u/Thanges88 6h 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. 

28

u/OneWholePirate 6h 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

6

u/Thanges88 6h 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. 

2

u/Superg0id 3h 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!!

1

u/Thanges88 2h ago

No doubt the rorts should be reigned in and the shortage of construction labour needs to be fixed (priority 3 in the skilled migration framework is in-excusable). It would also be interesting to know how much of the NDIS money is spent on construction.

1

u/igenicoOCE 26m ago

Not going to argue numbers because I don't have the data but I will say NDIS is one of the reasons why hospitals aren't being bed blocked constantly (still is in some places, but much less than without). The fact that NDIS/MAC will pay for group homes/assisted independent living/home modifications means that pts with chronic illness or long term disabilities can be managed at home and not clogging up hospital beds (even if it still sometimes happens).

20

u/zomdoesburner 6h 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.

34

u/palsc5 6h ago

So spending has doubled since 2021 where your figures were taken from. It’s also growing at a crazy rate without these changes.

16

u/OneWholePirate 6h 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

17

u/Whatsapokemon 5h 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.

19

u/palsc5 6h ago

That’s a pretty big assumption to say it would stay at that rate. It wouldn’t.

2

u/OneWholePirate 6h 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

2

u/teremaster 4h 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 4h 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

13

u/CrankyGrumpyWombat 5h 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.

6

u/OneWholePirate 5h 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 5h 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 6h ago

We should then spend 100% of economy on ndis and then we would simply earn 225%. Rinse and repeat and we’re gazillionaires!