At the current pace the NDIS will eclipse total revenue collected by the Commonwealth government within 25 years because of its rapidly rising costs and “demonstrably declining integrity”. (Dimitri Burshtein, Centre for Independent Studies).

Cost 2023: $37.7 billion; cost 2024: estimated $44.3 billion - up 21%; 2025: $48.8 billion reckoned on.

By March this year there were 65,000 people on NDIS, at an average cost of $68,000 each. The median Australian wage is $65,000.

Autism and intellectual problems are the Big Three conditions. People under 18 years of age make up 51% of the beneficiaries, but they are only 24% of the population.

The number of people diagnosed with disabilities has increased since the advent of NDIS. Coincidence?

The cost of support has increased “at a rate faster than economic growth and inflation”.

The author suggests that the NDIS is “incentivising over-diagnosis, over-servicing, and fraud”.

He writes that the head of the NDIS integrity and fraud unit told the Senate Estimates Committee that “90 percent of support coordinators commit fraud”. Prosecuting them would overwhelm the criminal justice system.

Two years ago, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission estimated that 15%-20% of the NDIS was “misused”.

On the lower of these two estimates, nearly $20 billion will have been lost to taxpayers due to fraud in the first term of the Albanese government.

There is no means of testing eligibility, and non-citizens on ‘Permanent and Protected Special Category’ visas are also eligible to get in on the act.

(Dimitri Burshtein writes for the Centre for Independent Studies, The Australian, and the Spectator Australia. “Disabling our economy” appeared in the Spectator 6/7/24).

The exaggerations, false comparisons, and unsubstantiated allegations in Burshtein’s article are shameful and unprofessional.

That the NDIS will outstrip total government revenue within 25 years is highly speculative and alarmist. Long-term economic forecasts over such a lengthy period, are notoriously unreliable. The NDIS is a relatively new program, and its costs are expected to stabilise over time. Rapid growth in the early years of such programs is not unusual (http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/ndis-costs/report/ndis-costs.pdf).

The figures given for cost increases (from $37.7 billion in 2023 to an estimated $48.8 billion in 2025) lack context. Government programs often experience higher initial growth rates, and what matters is their long-term sustainability and effectiveness. Increased spending can reflect the necessity of an investment in support (http://www.ndis.gov.au/media/2926/download).

Comparing the average cost of supporting an NDIS participant ($68,000) to the median
Australian wage ($65,000) is misleading. The costs encompass a wide range of services and supports essential for individuals with disabilities. (http://www.ndis.gov.au/media/3194/download).

The higher representation of younger individuals (51% of beneficiaries under 18) mirrors the nature of the conditions covered by the NDIS. Early intervention is crucial for conditions like autism, explaining the higher percentage of young beneficiaries (http://www.aci.health.nsw.gov.au/resources/early-childhood/early-intervention).

The increase in diagnoses since the advent of the NDIS can be better attributed to greater awareness and improved access to services. (http://www.ndis.gov.au/media/2751/download).

The claim that the cost of support has increased faster than economic growth and inflation overlooks the fact that large-scale social programs often see rapid cost increases in their initial phases (http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/ndis-costs/report).

The accusations of incentivizing over-diagnosis and fraud are serious, and therefore require evidence. (http://www.ndis.gov.au/about-us/governance/integrity).

Finally, the scheme has specific eligibility criteria to ensure support goes to those in need. Non-citizens with permanent residency often contribute significantly to society (http://www.ndis.gov.au/applying-access-ndis/am-i-eligible).

John Daysh

Your references do not open, or are marked 'unsafe'. No use at all. The NDIS ones, if they could be accessed, would naturally tout themselves as being OK.

Your outburst, “The exaggerations, false comparisons, and unsubstantiated allegations in Burshtein’s article are shameful and unprofessional”, is an uniformed rant against a professional by an anonymous poster with no known qualifications that can be presented.

Have you read the article?

Stick to your opinions, John. Like all people who rely heavily on ‘references’ and the opinions of other people, you look only for information that suits you. You are a ‘Second Hand Rose’ (an old song you probably haven't been around long enough to recognise)

You have every right to hold an opinion of the article that I have reviewed; but it is just your opinion - or the opinions of Googlers, regurgitated by you.

The NDIS is a disgrace; a honey pot for crooks, and completely devoid of government control - as it was intended to be. The Minister who is supposed to control it simply does not have the power to do so, and was never meant to have it, thanks to the designers of the NDIS. Some say it was a deliberate evil; others say it was the usual incompetence of the Australian political class. Either way, the NDIS is a disgraceful money pit; something that, on its own, should be enough to remove a government, if voters are at all concerned about having their taxes wasted.

NDIS was always going to be a major money-pit. I wrote about it in these pages way back when it was first instituted.

'Disabled' is a nebulous term that remains effectively undefined and probably undefinable. There will always be people at the margins who think they deserve support but don't quite fit the bill. But a little agitation and the money will eventually flow.

this is where the funding blowout comes from. Its relatively easy to identify the obvious cases that need support. The blokes got one leg. Yep he's in. Thalidomide kid. All the support you want.

Semi-comatose autistic kid. Money should flow. But autism is notoriously hard to define and the kid at the margin who's mum went doctor shopping and found one who will diagnose autism...well perhaps the money ought not flow. But it will because in the end no politician or public servant wants a visit from A Current Affair or Four Corners demanding that the kid get life-time care when just paying up is so easy because its someone else's money.

That's why it is so certain that the NDIS will be and will always be a money pit. There is no incentive to keep the dollars under control. No incentive for the politicians, or those who administer it. And certainly no incentive for the recipients.

I had some experience with people on care packages administered by the government. They, like the NDIS, received a pre-determined sum each year which was almost impossible to reduce. But they were under enormous pressure to spend it all irrespective of need. One I know, has quite possibly the most expensive 3 metre path in Australia paid for by the care package because the funds were there and needed to be spent.

There will be the occasional hoo-ha about reducing the costs, but it'll never happen. At least not while ever the government has funds or borrowing capacity to splash it around. There will come a time when we can't afford such profligacy, but that's a long way off.

mhaze

You are probably right. The same mindset that came up with the idea of stopping people from working during Covid, and paying them more than many of them earned to stay at home created NDIS. I read recently about the reluctance to close that taxpayer bonanza down.

NDIS has created a lot of 'bullsh..t' - i.e unnecessary - jobs that make employment figures look better. And and there is always the taxpayer to milk.

NDIS & Centrelink are a perfect example that Unions are exactly the same as Share Companies-only looking after their own with the funds designed for the good of all !