Hi John Daysh,

Welcome to the forum and thank you for the information.

I don't know if the following link helps add to your comments
but here it is:

http://percapita.org.au/our_work/false-economy-the-economic-benefits-of-the-ndis-and-the-consequences-of-government-cost-cutting/#:

the rot and rorting occurred over the last 10 years when it just so happened to be under the watchful stewardship of the LNP coalition government.
Aries54,
No-one I know blames the Govt for bureaucrat corruption & incompetence. As you'd be well aware the greater number of bureaucrats are Labor supporters so, blaming Govt for what you lot are doing is what's sick, not us here !

John Daysh,

Yes, when I said 10 trillion I was being facetious - perhaps I should have gone with my usual 'bazillion-gazillion'. I wasn't seriously suggesting $10 trillion was on the table!

The pint was to show that these multiplier numbers don't apply at all levels and we can't just say that its OK to ignore the cost because we get it back manyfold.

Equally, even if the multiplier number was valid, I assume no one asserts it also applies to the $2 billion plus rorted from the system.

As to the multiplier number itself, I wasn't suggesting it had been withdrawn, simply pointing out that the link used to support the article Foxy had relied on now returned a '404' which raised a series of questions.

OK... the rationale behind the number is available to the cognoscente.

So...
The link you provided was dated 2021. I note that the calculation for the multiplier, such as it is, relies on the " recent trends of low, zero or effectively negative government borrowing rates" to favour the higher rather than lower ranges. That may have been true, or at least defendable, in 2021, but no longer applies. Government borrowing costs are no longer effectively zero.

Looking at the multiplier assertions, numbers mentioned in the article from Furceri and Zdzienicka (2010) of 0.9, which were rejected because of the low borrowing costs are now much more likely to be right. At the very least the rationale behind the claim that the multiplier is 2.25 no longer applies.

I note also, as with most of these advocacy style calculations, that there is no discussion of opportunity costs. That is, while the multiplier might be greater than 1 that doesn't mean the lost opportunities of the 'investment' aren't greater. Investing at 1% is profitable but looks silly if a 2% rate is available.

None of which is to say that the NDIS shouldn't be funded, just that claims that it pays for itself are dubious. It is valuable in humanitarian terms, not financial terms.

And the rorted portion are a detriment in any terms

As long as integrity is not part of the selection process in bureaucracy nothing can improve !
That includes the Peter Principle.

"The concept of NDIS is great. The implementation and
delivery needs to be improved."

La Trobe University asked NDIS participants how to fix it:

http://latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2022/opinion/we-asked-ndis-participants-how-to-fix-it

"Well you're the one who raised the Chinese as exemplars of how to do it right. I've just spent a small amount of time pointing out that that is an inane claim."

They are doing something right, that's why they're winning.
And at the heart of the issue, that $778 shower chair encompasses everything that's wrong.

The Chinese have a population of what 1.3 billion.
Our nation is 25 million.

Can you even comprehend the logistics involved in governing 1.3 billion people?
85 million people with disabilities?
The entire population of Australia. times 3 and then some?

"Over the past decade 7.1 million people with disabilities in rural areas have been lifted out of absolute poverty"
- Is this not a step in the right direction from a country that one might still consider to be a developing nation, over that period?

It's probably only a matter of time before everything they do is superior to the West.
Not because they are smarter, but because we are dumber.