Australia became one of the original state signatories
to the UN's Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities in 2007.

So much controversy has arisen. On the one side we have
those who tell us how NDIS has changed people's lives.
On the other critics tell us that the NDIS is unaffordable.
That rorting goes on and so many other negative things.
It's bureaucracy sucks, and the list goes on.

I guess that higher participation in the scheme than
originally expected has increased the scheme costs.
As has the fact that some mainstream services have
discontinued or fail to maintain their services -
forcing people with disability to look elsewhere for
their support.

We're told that for every dollar spent, $2.25 is created
in value for the economy. We're told that as NDIS costs
increase so do the economic benefits.

Any how - there's more at the following:

http://unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2023/06/ndis-a-decade-on-where-to-from-here

"We're told that for every dollar spent, $2.25 is created in value for the economy."

Oh well in that case, let's spend a trillion dollars on the NDIS and get two trillion dollars benefit. No, 10 ten trillion to make 20 trillion. We'll all be rich!

Struth. That some fall for this.....

It used to be called voodoo economics - now its public policy!

BTW the link that purports to prove the $2.25 figure has been taken down. We can only guess why but my theory is that it was rubbish.

I wonder if the $2.1 billion rorted from the system also generates $4.7 billion (2.1 x2.25) in "value for the economy." We might have found the secret to national wealth. Allow corruption on a grand scale to generate economic wealth. You couldn't make this stuff up.

mhaze,

Please read the link I gave. It explains costs.

BTW:

Tact is the art of making a point without making an
enemy.

Keep that in mind for future reference if you want
people to join in your discussions.

Foxy wrote: "Please read the link I gave. It explains costs."

I did.
It doesn't.

And that's beside the point because I was talking about the $2.25 multiplier effect claim, not the costs. D'ya need me to mansplain the difference?

Did you bother to look into the $2.25 claim or did you just take their word for it? Hint: They have no evidence for that claim.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy."

There's essentially no way to point out your errors without you getting in a huff.

What's the NMNS?
Fester,
Non Military National Service. Paul1405 thinks of it (wrongly of course) as a boot camp. What it should & would do is to expose those young who walk the streets aimlessly to some belonging & discipline & responsibility. It would be for those who have no employment & no home to go to . Also those who need guidance to life that offers them a future rather than just shows them the path to Centrelink. They would be housed & fed & receive the unemployment benefits they get now but with the added benefit of becoming members of society rather than loners in a dog eat dog situation. Youth crime would literally disappear overnight because they simply wouldn't be on the streets. Councils Australia-wide should be required to co-operate by providing basic accommodation & provide basic work experience. It's not a perfect scheme but a hell of a lot better than what we have now. Councils should also provide basic functions such as an employment agency for those who want to & can enter the workforce proper. All that is needed is to provide young people who need a start to be given a start. It'll probably work out less costly & boost local economies better than what is happening now. Any jobs, no matter how basic that can be done by untrained people would offer a start for many. It could be done as a gap year service. It would be a very small sacrifice to do something for the country that keeps you & a character building exercise for the start to adulthood. My guess is that most would appreciate such a scheme very quickly once the benefits of belonging become obvious. Spend the available funds on these young people who can help build a better society instead of on the bureaucracy that divides society !

mhaze,

There is a fundamental principal in economics known as the Law of Diminishing Returns. The models and infrastructure on which the $2.25 figure is derived would almost certainly not see the any returns at a spending rate of $10 trillion a year, but that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t see a return when $50 billion is spent.

The data linked to in the article Foxy cited was not retracted, as you suggest, and can still be accessed on Lexis Nexus:

http://capitalmonitor.com.au/Display.aspx?TempLock=AkvTrqiTgNsdsXCgTMK7/WQAc53hKFzO+wx1+VaFYUk=&

For those who don’t have a Lexis Nexus account, the studies from which the figure was derived are referenced in Appendix 1 of the report found at:

http://teamwork.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Per_Capita_Report_teamworks.pdf