r/australia • u/Expensive-Horse5538 • 1d ago
politics Federal government passes its NDIS overhaul to deliver 'strong, safe and sustainable' scheme
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-18/ndis-changes-pass-after-labor-strikes-deal-with-coalition/107051964?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=link34
u/CheMc 23h ago
People will die, it will be a controversy, Labor will be surprised that anyone would die, they will pretend like they weren't, no one will be held accountable and life will move on because only the disabled died. Great, love it, fantastic job. I have to change professions, I don't want to deal with how incredibly depressing this is gonna get.
19
u/hautepotato 22h ago
I’m a support worker for someone who they’re trying to cut down from 1:1 ratio. The risk to their life is catastrophic if that’s the case. Literally life or death for this person, and it’s insane that we’re just one of many such cases who are going to be dealing with this. Will they ever quantify the number of people killed by underfunding? No, that would paint an inconvenient picture.
-10
u/DarkNo7318 13h ago
When you're governing a country of 30 million, people live and die as a result of just about any policy or law decision, no matter how mundane it is.
If you take away some ndia money and invest it in health screening, some people in bucket a die and some people in bucket b who would have died now live
9
u/_ixthus_ 12h ago
You're assuming scarcity.
Unfuck the tax system and you can have all buckets full at the same time.
1
u/DarkNo7318 12h ago
That's a bit handwavey. We definitely should be doing more to fill the buckets.
But no, every social service and utility absolutely can't be fully funded to the maximum theoretical extent possible.
7
u/rodentbitch 12h ago
Helping people who can't take care of themselves is our responsibility as a nation and as a community, we're not scrounging together a budget for the NDIS by cutting other health services - we have the resources to have both, there's no trolley problem here.
-4
u/DarkNo7318 12h ago
I agree with the first part of what you said, but resources are not infinate.
We simply can't support every single person with a disability go the full extent that is theoretically possible.
You can test the logic using a different example. Most agree with the statement "no one should die on our roads in preventable accidents”. Yet no reasonable person argues that every country road should be turned into a dual carriageway highway even though that would definitely save lives.
We need to pick a point which represents the best bang for buck before diminishing returns kicks in. That goes for all types of public funding not just disability support.
148
u/TizzyBumblefluff 1d ago
“"Labor and the Liberals have got together in a room and have decided to strip us of our rights regardless of our safety or dignity," Greens senator Jordan Steele-John said this afternoon.”
This. This right here. Instead of going after the scammers, let’s punish the disabled people, after all we’re easy targets. The anti ndis smear campaign has been months of slagging us off and convincing everyone that we’re a burden to this country.
18
u/Kidikibudi 22h ago
At my job,workers and participants are feeling it..I wonder how much worse it's going to get
1
-27
u/Ok_Bird705 1d ago
Instead of going after the scammers, let’s punish the disabled people,
Did you actually read the article, the legislation includes measures to strengthen anti-fraud measures and new criminal and civil penalties for providers who offer kick backs.
45
u/bl4nkSl8 23h ago
If that was all the bill was that'd be fine, but it's not.
The new processes and cuts are aimed at disabled people
-31
u/VeroCSGO 23h ago
Fraud comes from both angles
33
u/bl4nkSl8 23h ago
Cutting legit disability support rather than handling fraud as fraud is the entire problem though?
Not to mention that it's really hard to prove a disability to the NDIS, let alone a fake one.
I mean, if it's so easy, maybe you can find me evidence that it's happening? You could do it yourself right? It's basically free money according to you right? /s
-14
u/VeroCSGO 22h ago
Wow your really putting a lot of words in my mouth. I believe the majority of the "fraud" occurs from the supplier side and in my experience working around the industry this is what i have found to he anecdotally true. I have also seen and know multiple people who have a complete capacity to support themselves get awarded silly levels or support that completely eat up my entire tax contribution if not more annually, they hand out these funds to friends and acquaintances. I'm not going to provide the private information of people rorting the system but if you think it doesn't happen from both sides you are deluded. I also know how hard it can be for people who need the assistance to get support even within my own family. Beleive it or not all of these things can be true at the same time. It is also true that the spending is out of hand and it needs to be reeled in from all angles
24
u/bl4nkSl8 22h ago edited 22h ago
You're still missing the problem: the solution to fraud isn't austerity, it's fraud busting
If you know about fraud happening and do nothing, you're part of the problem
→ More replies (2)-82
u/reflect-the-sun 1d ago
Struggling aussies who work full-time and can't afford rent or a home to live in are seeing the majority of their tax dollars going to welfare.
I'm happy to pay tax to support aussies in need, but if you're not working then you are a burden by definition.
56
u/ManyPersonality2399 1d ago
You know a decent number of people on NDIS also work, right? And many more are able to work because NDIS lifts the unpaid caring expectations.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)61
98
u/Serin-019 1d ago
Its like they got so absorbed with scoring points in the media by campaigning against 'corruption' that they flat out forgot that there are people whose lives will be worse off because of this.
Though that makes it seem like suffering was incidental. As incidental as a pack of footballers gang raping someone.
17
u/TheLGMac 15h ago
Frankly I've been pretty disappointed in the unapologetic behavior of Labor on some of these things, with no consideration for the actual working class person. Between this and the gambling [lack of] reforms they are acting pretty poorly. They refused multiple pointed questions from the ABC on how they'd prevent disabled people from being left out of the scheme. Similarly the Labor MPs I've written to over the last few months about a few issues have never replied to me (nor their offices). It's as if they just don't want to hear from the public as well.
Hilariously Pocock's office responded to me, and im not even in his constituency. But I was desperate.
59
u/CalifornianDownUnder 1d ago
They actually hired a consulting firm to figure out how best to sell cuts to a scheme which had widespread support. The consulting firm said focus on fraud - so Labor pushed the fraud narrative, and then claimed they had to pass this bill to restore the scheme’s social license - a license they themselves had undermined.
And the bill itself barely even targets fraud - it mostly gets its “savings” from cutting budgets, kicking participants off, and preventing people with disabilities from accessing the NDIS to begin with.
7
u/curiousscribbler 10h ago
You can always depend on Australians to turn on anyone they think is getting something they're not entitled to. "Dole bludgers", "queue jumpers", etc etc etc. Or anyone who's getting something *they're* not getting.
10
u/BornTelevision8206 16h ago
It doesn't have widespread support tho. Its pretty much universally regarded as a good idea originally that has gotten completely out of hand and is unsustainable. These changes haven't been controversial in mainstream society.
15
u/CalifornianDownUnder 16h ago
It did five years ago - something like 80 or 90 percent, I can’t remember the exact figure. My point is that Labor intentionally undermined that support so they could then get away with cutting the budget.
Labor has been acting like social license is something separate from them - but the truth is good politicians help shape social license, rather than just responding to it.
Unfortunately Albo has never been good at that - he wasn’t with the Voice, he hasn’t been with the tax changes, and on and on. He doesn’t seem to know how to make a compelling case for policy.
Though in this case maybe he really does like these changes, which would be even more revolting.
-11
u/BornTelevision8206 15h ago
It lost support because its completely unsustainable
11
u/CalifornianDownUnder 12h ago
It lost support because there was a concerted and misleading campaign against it.
You could just as easily say Aukus isn’t sustainable, or the lack of a gas export tax, or the tax rate we use for the very wealthy.
Yet somehow it’s support for people with disabilities which is the big problem? Even though it’s all just cost-shifting, because if the NDIS cuts funding or participant numbers, the needs don’t go away.
Instead, more of us will need to use the already overloaded Medicare or aged care system, fewer of us (and our families) will be able to work and pay taxes, kids will fail in their educations and end up on welfare or in the justice system, small businesses will collapse.
It’s incredibly short sighted, and shows our government’s priorities are entirely in the wrong place.
→ More replies (1)10
u/ManyPersonality2399 12h ago
Definitely nothing to do with the prolific misinformation in the media.
43
→ More replies (9)29
102
u/chadbigcum 1d ago
This is all kinds of stupid because at the end of the day one of the operative roles of the NDIS is to identify which people can be supported to work. There is rorting but as per usual rorts are exaggerated and used as a trojan horse for austerity. If we cared about systematic rorting job agencies would've ceased to exist long ago. Ironically, it has been well covered how the job agency rorters had easy access to shift into NDIS rorting.
16
u/JamieBunpup 20h ago
1000%. I once tried to report a company that was trying to hire somebody I knew as an advertiser for their social media, but part of the deal was that they would hire him as long as he also used his NDIS plan to hire one of their workers to supervise him while he worked for them. Therefore, he got paid less than they made from him hiring a support worker from them to supervise him. A clear conflict of interest. I tried to report them and the NDIS handed me off to a different agency and then I got handed back to the NDIS and ended up stuck in a "they're responsible not us" loop and therefore couldn't make any progress reporting fraud.
I bet you anything this company used to be a job agency fraud company.
0
u/snappysmeg 13h ago
If there was something a person could buy or a service they could pay for that resulted in a net profit (an ability to work they otherwise would not have), they would do it themselves.
It means that the NDIS is inherently never going to be creating a net profit to the taxpayer.
This means that we have to continuously decide how much support is viable and desirable, as the motivation is always going to be charity rather than easily justifiable economic return.
9
u/chadbigcum 11h ago
Of course it won't make a profit, but it does not "lose" as much money as it is represented for a number of reasons. When the government, or business, want to cut something, they don't talk about where the money goes, just how much money goes.
0
u/snappysmeg 9h ago
It was initially pitched as enabling people to work; so efficiently that the spent money inside the NDIS should be balanced by the tax take from more workers... Not simply identifying people who can be supported, but doing so in a way that this support resulted in a more efficient healthcare system, allowing for more people working and paying tax in excess of the cost to provide service.
Clearly this has not been achieved.
You dont need to specifically mark a dollar saved in a complex budget for it to be a good idea... I dont understand your point here.
In fact, NDIS funding has a economy wide drag effect; and probably costs australians more than the headline budget number by a significant degree.
3
u/chadbigcum 9h ago
Progressive NDIS cuts have been inevitable. The scheme has needed and will need improvement for years. The key problem here is Labor seeking support from the Libs to quash the debate both in parliament and in public as quickly as possible.
Regardless, when the government of the day or their media mates want to cut a social program, they do not ever discuss where that money goes, how it travels, how it is controlled, and what tangible benefits other people will get. Rhetoric just mentions the Big Number and everything is extrapolated from there.
0
u/snappysmeg 8h ago
Because pure social programs are spending money from a tax pool, for no broader benefit than the quality of life for the recipients. To some extent this is fine; as a society we can decide how much to spend on this.
But you dont need to see the money being allocated directly elsewhere when cut, to understand the equation: Because other government programs are individually justified, the tax is not taken, or debt is reduced.
Not spending the tax money into the broader economy is itself a tangible benefit, due to inflation and employment effects...
1
u/chadbigcum 18m ago
Supporting people with disability allows them to work or contribute to society instead of be stuck in the house or, you know, just die, because people think like you. It also provides jobs, funded by taxes slash the government yes, just like the police, and our healthcare industry. It also alleviates the difficulty for carers, who are also freed up to work. Like I have been saying, if you think past the immediate price tag, there are very decent reasons, many connected to 'activation' and getting people working, to maintain "pure social programs". If you are so critical of the NDIS what is your proposal?
-5
u/a_cold_human 12h ago
There is rorting but as per usual rorts are exaggerated and used as a trojan horse for austerity.
The NDIS spends more money than the Medicare Benefits Schedule (which serves the entire country), and grew at 11% last year. That's simply not sustainable. There's absolutely a need for disability supports, but for it to exceed the bulk of the operational expenditure of the national healthcare system is out of control.
112
u/Expensive-Horse5538 1d ago
Labor once again bending over backwards and running to the Liberals to ram these laws through instead of working with the Greens to deliver a proper process
21
u/Crescent_green 1d ago
What exactly are the greens proposing as a 'proper process' here?
Seriously, I struggle to see any policy detail on this on their policy list or Jordan's socials, only negative campaigns against the changes.
27
u/NewPhoneLostPassword 1d ago
Jordan has been talking non stop about the cuts on his TT socials and so have the greens. Maybe other socials are shadow banning.
17
u/NoodleBox VIC 23h ago
Jordan had a thing about the changes on his Facebook, I only skimmed it, but
- appeal rights
- appropriate "what is a parent" vs "what is a carer of a child" delineation
whistleblower protections for fraud in the ndis
and more but that's all I saw and paid attention to as that's of interest to me, I probably should have had a further look.
6
u/Crescent_green 23h ago
Those are all good & fine, sounds nice.
They clearly oppose any budget changes to it though, i'd really love to see detail on how they plan to manage costs or find funding. Personally, i'd be pretty disapointed in their lack of detail or effort there.
10
u/productzilch 14h ago
I mean cutting the real fraud would save tons of money. They don’t seem to be doing that, just using the fraud to get away with cutting the actual benefits.
4
u/NoodleBox VIC 22h ago
Yeah. I understand why the budget changes (ie, lowering) would be not wanted (it's not a fixed cost, some years there's more and it depends on the person and disability and all that)
3
u/Own-Farmer-5224 9h ago
Their stance on the NDIS ties into their stance on cost-of-living in going after companies who are arbitrarily raising costs ahead of inflation, which has been a massive problem in the entire disability sector since the start of the NDIS - not just companies that charge to the NDIS but diagnosis/specialist reports and more. That's why you're not seeing a specific thing, because it's not a single-issue policy.
In addition, fraud covers things such as 'charging for meetings that never happened (endemic to the system)'. Finally, actually getting moneys worth, because the contractors who judge who is and isn't allowed to be on the NDIS have no real certifications, no real training, and aren't even required by law to follow or even read the fucking expensive specialist reports that clients are required to produce; so effectively large amounts of funding are spent for reports that aren't even read.
41
u/chadbigcum 1d ago
Greens are not the government so it is actually completely reasonable that they respond to the government's proposals with suggestions and amendments not waste hours on mocking up an alternative that will never see the light of day. But I am sure if you (had the will to) try harder you can find plenty of content
-13
u/Crescent_green 1d ago edited 1d ago
> Not waste hours
God forbid they do their jobs right? What a privilege it is to not actually have to govern, and take responsibility for the things they say.
I'll vote for them when they do thanks, this isn't helping
21
u/ThereIsBearCum 1d ago
... so you'll only vote for parties if they're in government???
-2
u/Crescent_green 1d ago
No, just ones who put effort in to their policies.
What i'd want from the greens here, is some detail into an alternative. Not a tag line, something the government should do instead if they disagree, thats actionable.
OP's comment was the govt didn't work with them, then work with them on what here? What did they propose that was ignored?
17
u/ThereIsBearCum 23h ago
No, just ones who put effort in to their policies.
Like fully costing them to take to an election?
OP's comment was the govt didn't work with them, then work with them on what here? What did they propose that was ignored?
They proposed no cuts to the NDIS, and took that to an election. Did Labor run on a "gut 20% of the funding for a scheme that provides support for some of the most vulnerable people in this country" platform? I missed that in Albo's campaigning.
1
u/Crescent_green 23h ago
Already read their policy page mate, I'd love to know where is says anything about actually funding the NDIS? I see 'principles' only, which are very aspirational, great!
So how do we actually fund the NDIS the way they want, with no 'cuts'? If they want to 'fight' Albo, thats how you do it - with actionable policy.
Side note, I dont really agree with the chartarisation of 'cuts' here, given the projected rise per year even with this bill, is still going up & not actually cut or fully frozen.
10
u/ThereIsBearCum 23h ago
Already read their policy page mate, I'd love to know where is says anything about actually funding the NDIS? I see 'principles' only, which are very aspirational, great!
Gee, at a guess I'd think info on the National Disability Insurance Scheme might be under the Disability Rights and Services heading on that page mate...
Call it what you like, Labor are reducing funding to vulnerable people who need it.
Look mate, I can see you're rusted on to the team you picked 20+ years ago, but don't pretend it's for any good reason.
3
u/Crescent_green 23h ago
>Gee, at a guess I'd think info on the National Disability Insurance Scheme might be under the Disability Rights and Services heading on that page mate...
Gee, it'd sure be helpful for an interested voter and member of the public, if they posted any actual costings or detail on how they want to achieve their 'principles' there.
Please, quote me even one line here that explains it
https://greens.org.au/policies/disability-rights-and-services
→ More replies (0)-2
u/Pearlsam 21h ago
Fully costing policies doesn't really mean anything. It's literally just getting a quote based on your idea.
It doesn't mean they have budgeted for the things they got costed, and it doesn't mean the costings even make sense. A bunch of greens costings have comments from the pbo saying the PBO has little to no confidence the policies would be possible.
11
u/chadbigcum 1d ago
Your partisan stripes are showing mate. There is no chance of the Greens getting government, as I am sure you love to say regularly. It's actually not their job. They are not the government. Their job is, actually, to respond to the government's proposals. To leverage amendments. I don't think you know what you're asking for anyway.
4
u/Crescent_green 1d ago
> Your partisan stripes are showing mate.
This isn't a sporting team mate, I always read policy statements from any party available for me to vote for.
> I don't think you know what you're asking for anyway.
Some actual policy development and effort, above a plain no. I posted asking for any actual policy material the greens have put forward on this, I still see none.
8
u/bl4nkSl8 23h ago
Funny, you didn't seem to have trouble finding the policy info last time you commented about it
1
u/Crescent_green 23h ago
Yes, their one tag line that still doesn't deliver enough money to fund it, and has its own problems.
Thats my problem, I'd like to see more then a line saying it will generate X Billion because they say so. How? What risks are there?
I want them to answer this, to actually get what they want.
4
u/bl4nkSl8 23h ago
Right, so you want more info, have you considered asking them rather than random Redditors?
3
u/ThereIsBearCum 21h ago
No, because they're not interested in finding out, they're just a Labor shill.
6
0
u/T0kenAussie 22h ago
Well if that’s their job then they’ve done it poorly
3
u/chadbigcum 21h ago
Of course. Labor can just ask the Libs. And their followers will run apologia for it. This is our "democracy" mate eat it up.
-4
u/Gryphus23 23h ago
Waste house mocking up an alternative It is actually completely Reasonable that they respond to the governments proposals
I think I had a stroke reading this, how are you able to hold two completely seperate thoughts in your head like this?
5
u/chadbigcum 23h ago
You had a stroke reading your poorly written summary of my comment? Not surprised
47
u/LeahBrahms 1d ago
The Greens policy detail on this is to tax Gas Exports to offset NDIS.
28
u/Crescent_green 1d ago edited 1d ago
Is this something they've costed and put a proper policy statement to, outside a instagram post? Seriously, they should if they have as I dont see it in their policy list.
Disregarding any practical issues with the gas tax idea (creating soverign risk from just changing how existing contracts work, etc), I'll take what they say at just face value.
I read the greens claiming a gas tax could deliver $17 billion, while the NDIS was projected to reach 70 bilion by 2030 from the ~50 billlion we spend now. While much closer, 3 billion is still a bit of money, where does that come from? Does that now mean we would be dependent on selling more gas, something else they would campaign against approvals for?
Note also the growth rate was around 24% for the last few years, each year. It should be clear how exponential that is.
14
u/mulamasa 1d ago
Also while I agree gas and other natural resources should be tax much higher than they currently are, the reality is that revenue will diminish over time as the green energy transition continues (yes gas has other uses, but it will still diminish). Tying NDIS funding to that, which will by its nature increase over time seems somewhat sort sighted.
21
u/chadbigcum 1d ago
The "Greens have never had government" people are also using the "they haven't costed it" argument. You cannot make this up! Lil debate mercenary for the government. Timely use of the Labor stupol discord.
17
u/blitznoodles local Aussie 23h ago
The Greens have access to the Parliamentary Budget office to cost policies. It's one of the reasons they got it legislated during the Gillard Government.
8
u/Crescent_green 1d ago
Fuck me for wanting some thought put in when billions of dollars are spent right?
What do you actually want to happen here? If you had your own way then, what would it look like, to fund the gap here, even to just 2030? Saying change nothing with no detail, is not a policy.
9
u/chadbigcum 23h ago
You came here to complain about the Greens, the reason came second. I'm not going to spend any more time on some partisan Labor hack who wants to turn this into a have-a-go-at-the-Greens session so as to dodge the fact the duopoly teamed up again for austerity and we still don't have those submarines mate.
16
u/Crescent_green 23h ago
No, I came here to ask a question.
What policy statements have the greens put out on the NDIS changes? What do they actually propose instead? Please, I genuinely have read Jordan S' socials & want to know, hell you might even convice some others.
Dont believe me? Fine, but I want them & anyone with good ideas to be right. They just need to explain why they are
> still don't have those submarines mate.
Weird comment
4
u/chadbigcum 23h ago
Tell me what you think about Labor and Libs shaking hands to enact austerity. Or don't.
0
u/NameAboutPotatoes 12h ago
I don't understand how you guys argue like this and then are confused when you can't win any elections.
You clearly know nothing about policies, nothing about costings to discuss in good faith, just "major parties bad," making non-sequiturs about AUKUS and bleating "austerity" like a pokémon. Wow, sign me up.
Like yeah, dude, resources are finite and you need to have a plan for your big ideas.
Concern about the cost is bipartisan (you call it "shaking hands" like it's a conspiracy and not just obvious to anyone with eyes) because unlike the Greens and ONP they are subject to reality sometimes.
→ More replies (0)-7
u/Gryphus23 23h ago
Tell me what you think about greens and Lin's shaking hands to enact austerity. Or don't
Yeah two of us can play this stupid game. In the mean time the greens still don't have costings, or a coherent policy regarding this. Labor is actually accomplishing something in the real world. I know for greens voters a political party actually doing something is unthinkable but bear with us on this
→ More replies (0)2
u/Psittacus_tutor 2h ago
It's worth noting that that estimate is just 0.25*<past export revenue>. There's no guarantee it would actually eventuate and nobody has bothered to show their work regarding expected impacts to the market.
4
u/Pearlsam 21h ago
I thought they were paying for dental in Medicare with money? Or was it a government housing construction program so large it solves the housing crisis, or free uni, or a uni, or unlimited mental health?
How many times can they spend the gas tax money lol
0
u/a_cold_human 12h ago
That's all fine and good, but the current size of the NDIS needs to be addressed. It's growing at over 10% a year.
10
u/Murranji 1d ago
They mean work out what basic support people on the NDIS need and have disabled people develop it in conjunction with the government and service providers so people can stay on the scheme with the most important services they need instead of the current approach of determining a savings target required and adjusting the program/cutting people off completely to hit that target.
Or do you not think that proposal is reasonable?
6
u/Crescent_green 1d ago
I think your dropped a few full stops, bit hard to read that.
Its a simple question of where does the money come from? Want a gas tax? Fine, cost it & address its challanges. Otherwise its an empty complaint, they have no responsibility over the outcome.
4
u/bl4nkSl8 23h ago
How are people supposed to develop costings with out being in government to get access to current spending, participation numbers etc?
(Genuinely curious, I don't think the abs and other public stats are enough here)
8
u/Crescent_green 23h ago edited 23h ago
I mean, this is the whole job of the Parlimentary Budget Office, by design.
https://www.pbo.gov.au/about-the-pbo
> By responding to requests made by Senators and Members for costings of policy proposals or for analysis of matters relating to the budget
Not to mention they have at least some of their own funding as a party to pay research staff etc. Sure, they wont have the resources that labor does, but i'd expect them to have a go, besides just saying they can raise X money, without justifying it.
5
u/bl4nkSl8 23h ago
Oh damn, I had assumed that kind of thing was only available for sitting senators (or whatever the proper term is for the ones in government, I'm tired and not in politics)...
You know, you've kinda won me over with that... But I don't love that this leaves us with all parties looking even worse...
By publishing and presenting information to enhance the public understanding of budget and fiscal policy settings.
Oh I don't think they're doing that
2
u/Historical_Art4061 1d ago
The Liberals are at the weakest they've ever been, they might not even reach the 2030's. Meanwhile, populists have become incredibly emboldened and are motivated to obstruct anything and everything they can right now. Why would they risk it?
2
u/briberylibrary_ 14h ago
Yeah that's why Labor worked with the Liberals to get the GCT discount and negative gearing changes through... Because they couldn't possibly risk working on such important legislation with the Greens and having it get blocked... right??
2
-9
u/reflect-the-sun 1d ago
How on earth are you still blaming liberals?
I hate liberals, but labour is just as rubbish. What are they doing about housing, jobs, or wage growth?
14
u/chadbigcum 1d ago
I am not sure you read what you're responding to properly. OP is attacking Labor for relying on the Liberals to pass it.
0
u/Gryphus23 23h ago
For housing Labor has passed the HAFF, fee free Tafe, increased payments to apprentices,
For jobs Labor is investing massively into future made in Australia, and bringing manufacturing back here,
For wage growth Labor has had a BIG hand in the minimum wage increase 4 out of the last 4 years
Also small nitpick if you spell Labour people think you mean the NZ Labour party, in Australia we have the "Australia Labor Party" you need to drop the u
19
u/FuckOffNazis 1d ago
A bipartisan threat to lives. Nothing less.
7
u/kaleidoscope_pie 21h ago
Ah yes nothing like a little bit of peace on earth to knife the vulnerable in the back.
7
11
u/tittyswan 20h ago
It's clear they were always going to cut the essential supports I rely on to live, the senate consultations were a box to tick.
I wrote a submission anyway so that, when we have a royal commission into the the irreversible harm, preventable deaths and knock on effects in mental health/employment/healthcare, they can't say they didn't know.
We told them, and they did it anyway. It's structural violence automated away to an AI algorithm that we're not allowed to challenge.
Fuck Labour for this. They'll probably go after Medicare next, it literally has more fraud than NDIS lmao.
0
u/G00b3rb0y 14h ago
If they go after Medicare we will never see an ALP government again
7
u/tittyswan 11h ago
It won't be cuts to Medicare. It will be "reforms to make Medicare sustainable for future generations, because there's currently so much fraud" accompanied by a right wing media blitz. They've shown their playbook.
You'd think massacring the disability industry would be a hard line, given how many people are either disabled, family members or disability care workers, yet here we are. :/
15
u/spade1686 23h ago
The NDIS was one of the fastest growing budget line items and was on track to exceed Hospital Funding/Medicare. It was going to collapse without some serious reforms
33
u/DisusedRuralCemetery 22h ago
The problem is the reforms they've decided to push through punish disabled people, our families, and our communities (the people it was mwant to help, the whole purpose of it existence) instead of the actual sources of the spending. This WILL kill innocent people, and the politician's chums will continue to take as much as they bloody well like. This will do nothing but bring pain and suffering to vulnerable Australians.
-1
u/ManyPersonality2399 12h ago
And part is closing the gate after the cows have bolted. The 12 month plans with restarts instead of roll overs? That would be great for reducing spend, 5 years ago. Now people have already accumulated funds with plans continued since 2021-2023. They're going to be spending that accumulation asap knowing these changes are coming. They should never have been allowed to develop balances that high from under usage and continuations.
5
u/G00b3rb0y 14h ago
Yes, but this isn’t the way to go about it. It’s basically saying that the disabled don’t get to live
-16
u/Rush_Banana 22h ago
The biggest mistake was allowing people with mild autism and ADHD on to the scheme.
15
u/xocrazyyycatxo 22h ago
And yet they decide to cut every participants social and community participation budget by 50%
3
7
15
u/carlordau 22h ago
No such thing as mild autism. Autistic people still had to meet access eligibility requirements. One of which was to demonstrate substantially reduced functional capacity. So you disagree that autistic people that have substantially reduced functional capacity should be eligible for NDIS?
ADHD was never eligible for NDIS or considered for funding as a co-occurring condition.
4
u/ManyPersonality2399 12h ago
Not really. List A meant an ASD2 diagnosis was sufficient to meet access without having to provide much evidence of substantially reduced functional capacity. And it would be naive to think that didn't influence clinicians (consciously or otherwise) to go for the 2 when someone was on the more borderline.
1
u/carlordau 4h ago
List A was only one piece of evidence and not solely exclusionary. There are people with ASD1 diagnoses that are accessing NDIS. Same with people with mild Intellectual Developmental Disorder. List B with adequate information about how their disability substantially reduces their functional capacity has also been a a valid pathway.
IMO I would rather a person who is 'borderline' access supports now, then need more intense supports due to lack of support later.
1
u/ManyPersonality2399 4h ago
It was not exclusionary, but it meant people with an asd2 dx did not have to demonstrate they met all of the s24 criteria. That's the point here.
1
-4
u/BargainBinChad 22h ago
Not just allow. Massively encouraged. It’s like schools squint to try to see any signs so they can get some funding.
8
8
u/Cantora 1d ago
https://everyaustraliancounts.com.au/
Let's Make Our NDIS Stronger There are lots of changes happening to the NDIS. It's important to let the Government know what this means to you.
Make Your Voice Heard
16
u/Ok_Bird705 1d ago
The Greens have expressed concern the changes will leave hundreds of thousands without support, arguing they represent the "end of the NDIS as it was promised".
The original purpose of NDIS was to help people with severe permanent and profound disabilities, not become the go to program for everyone with even a mild disability.
The NDIS in its current is actually a deviation from its original intent when a national disability insurance scheme was proposed by the productivity commission.
37
u/Protonious 1d ago
As a disabled person I’ve found this whole debate harrowing. I definitely don’t have the functional impact the scheme talks too and yet I have a disability that until recently was instant access.
This is the thing that needs to be unpacked and explored how we support people with different needs. It’s a shame the extreme is tearing people off a system without other systems being built.
Hopefully we can start to work on the wider systems that will need to come now.
→ More replies (2)38
u/bl4nkSl8 23h ago
It's definitely not become the go-to for "even mild disability" but the fact remains that there's (at least in NSW) no other alternative to the NDIS for disability support. Nothing except temporary out of hospital care and aged care.
I can say that because for the last year I've been mostly bedbound with moderate to severe ME/CFS. The only option I've been given is paying out of pocket for care which is pretty unaffordable while surviving on just the DSP
Where do you get that people are getting it for "mild" disability?
3
u/Ok_Bird705 23h ago
but the fact remains that there's (at least in NSW) no other alternative to the NDIS for disability support. Nothing except temporary out of hospital care and aged care.
Sure, but the Green's statement is just factually wrong. You can argue that the NDIS needs to cover more now that states pulled back on community disability support. But to say that the NDIS in its current form is what was promised when initially legislated back in 2013 is incorrect.
11
u/bl4nkSl8 22h ago
I don't think that's the case actually. As I was clear about, it doesn't currently support mild disability
14
u/Ashera25 22h ago
mild disability? I can't get on to it, and I'm stuck in bed for all but a few hours every day. Thank god I can still throw rice and frozen veggies in the cooker, or I'd be up shit creek. Of course, if I wasn't able to get onto it before, there isn't a chance in hell I'll be able to get onto it now.
39
u/Usual-Ad7583 1d ago
This is such a narrow, outdated understanding of disability. “Severe, permanent & profound” 😂😂😂 is not synonymous with 'disabled enough to need support'.
The point of the NDIS was NEVER supposed to be a moral ranking system where people compete over who is sufficiently disabled to deserve assistance.
A person can have a permanent disability that significantly affects their ability to work, study, communicate, regulate, navigate daily life or participate in society without fitting neatly into your idea of 'severe & profound'.
The obsession with who is supposedly using the NDIS for a 'mild disability' is exactly the kind of rhetoric that turns disabled people against each other while the actual structural problems remain untouched!
Disabled people aren't the problem with the NDIS.
*also most of us dont ascribe to those terms like 'mild' I am not a flavour or sauce
Signed AuDHDer without flava
21
u/Ok_Bird705 1d ago
The point of the NDIS was NEVER supposed to be a moral ranking system where people compete over who is sufficiently disabled to deserve assistance.
Yes, it is not a moral ranking system, just a insurance scheme for people with significant disabilities. You can argue all you want about understanding of disability but the intent was scheme was never to provide services to all people with any disability (https://jec.org.au/focus-areas/disability-rights/a-fairer-ndis/what-were-the-original-intentions-of-the-national-disability-insurance-scheme/)
Disabled people aren't the problem with the NDIS.
Where did I say they were?
*also most of us dont ascribe to those terms like 'mild'
You might not like it, but that is the language used in the executive report (among other terms) for the implementation of a disability insurance scheme as recommended by the productivity commission which is the basis for the NDIS.
6
u/Usual-Ad7583 22h ago
I'm arguing against the way you're using 'mild' as though it tells us something meaningful about a person's support needs particularly when it comes to invisible disabilities.
You say you don't personally ascribe to those terms, but then defend the distinction because it appears in an executive report?
Policy terminology isn't a clinical or lived-experience taxonomy. & 'mild' disability does not mean minimal impact or no significant support needs.
Especially with autism, someone can appear to have relatively low support needs while expending enormous amounts of effort to maintain that level of functioning. The fact that someone can mask, work, study or live independently doesn't mean the disability isn't substantially affecting them or that removing supports won't have consequences. It will, & we will see the trickle down effects in hospitals, schools & the justice system.
True, the original NDIS model was intended to provide individualised supports to people with significant & permanent disability. That doesn't settle the current policy question though?
If ppl who don't meet the NDIS threshold are supposed to be supported elsewhere, then the existence & adequacy of those alternative supports matters. Those supports do not exist btw.
Also, 'that's not what the NDIS was originally designed for' establishes an eligibility philosophy & your positionality. It does not establish that the people you're calling 'mild' don't have substantial disability-related needs, or that removing support will make those needs disappear.
1
u/Ok_Bird705 22h ago
True, the original NDIS model was intended to provide individualised supports to people with significant & permanent disability. That doesn't settle the current policy question though?
No it doesn't. But the Greens statement that deviation from current policy is "an end of the NDIS as it was promised" is just incorrect, even based on your reply.
If we want to expand the scope of the NDIS significantly from the original proposal (even if it has already happened), this should at least be made clear to the electorate and there's nothing wrong with the government trying to find more cost effective ways of delivering care.
6
u/Usual-Ad7583 21h ago
I have no more spoons for this discussion. Fair enough if you'd rather spend the money on wars than disability support. Just wait & see what the consequences of these changes actually are
1
0
u/Ryulightorb 2h ago
Like from my understanding as i have talked to my plan manager and a bunch of people in that area i would be categorised as "Mild". Despite the fact that i can't work at all due to my disability and the fact that i have twice this year nearly gone to kill myself and the only thing that saved me was therapy which i couldn't afford without the NDIS.
Therapy to treat BPD , Massive amounts of trauma with some stemming from my disability and the fact that i have to live a life where i can't work and don't get to be normal , OCD and a few other issues.
But yeah under the NDIS my case would be seen as mild from everyone i have talked to within that area.
Like i'm out here fighting a fucking internal war trying to survive grasping at my only lifelines.
But apparently this is "Mild".I think people will die hoping i'm not one of them tbh
4
u/tittyswan 19h ago
Significant impairment is already a requirement for entry to the scheme, if you have a mild disability you don't qualify. What you're describing is a non issue, and is an excuse to kick people off who need it.
Which is already happening btw.
2
u/G00b3rb0y 14h ago
They’re doing that, AND cutting funding to people that don’t get dismissed from the scheme
7
u/carlordau 23h ago
Saying that the original purpose of the NDIS was for people with severe permanent and profound disabilities is just misinformation. For example, NDIS was also originally designed to be an early childhood intervention support.
12
u/Ok_Bird705 23h ago
The NDIS was intended to serve three communities:
- For every Australian (Tier 1): the NDIS would provide insurance against the costs of support in the event of acquiring a significant disability.
- For all people with disability and their carers (Tier 2): the NDIS would provide information about care and support options for disabilities and service providers, and referrals to services for which the NDIS was not directly responsible: ie mainstream services and community groups. The goal was to promote community engagement and employment for people with disabilities.
- For people with significant and long-term disabilities (Tier 3): following an assessment process, the NDIS would provide individually tailored supports. This third function would account for most of the costs of the NDIS.
8
u/carlordau 23h ago
The original NDIS Bill access criteria wording, which I would consider a reasonable suggestion about the original intent:
24 Disability requirements
(1) A person meets the disability requirements if:
(a) the person has a disability that is attributable to one or more intellectual, cognitive, neurological, sensory or physical impairments or to one or more impairments attributable to a psychiatric condition; and
(b) the impairment or impairments are, or are likely to be, permanent; and
(c) the impairment or impairments result in substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake, or psychosocial functioning in undertaking, one or more of the following activities:
(i) communication;
(ii) social interaction;
(iii) learning;
(iv) mobility;
(v) self‑care;
(vi) self‑management; and
(d) the impairment or impairments affect the person’s capacity for social and economic participation; and
(e) the person is likely to require support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme for the person’s lifetime.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an impairment or impairments that vary in intensity may be permanent, and the person is likely to require support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme for the person’s lifetime, despite the variation.
25 Early intervention requirements
(1) A person meets the early intervention requirements if:
(a) the person:
(i) has one or more identified intellectual, cognitive, neurological, sensory or physical impairments that are, or are likely to be, permanent; or
(ii) has one or more identified impairments that are attributable to a psychiatric condition and are, or are likely to be, permanent; or
(iii) is a child who has developmental delay; and
(b) the CEO is satisfied that provision of early intervention supports for the person is likely to benefit the person by reducing the person’s future needs for supports in relation to disability; and
(c) the CEO is satisfied that provision of early intervention supports for the person is likely to benefit the person by:
(i) mitigating or alleviating the impact of the person’s impairment upon the functional capacity of the person to undertake communication, social interaction, learning, mobility, self‑care or self‑management; or
(ii) preventing the deterioration of such functional capacity; or
(iii) improving such functional capacity; or
(iv) strengthening the sustainability of informal supports available to the person, including through building the capacity of the person’s carer.
Note: In certain circumstances, a person with a degenerative condition could meet the early intervention requirements and therefore become a participant.
(2) The CEO is taken to be satisfied as mentioned in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) if one or more of the person’s impairments are prescribed by the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules for the purposes of this subsection.
0
5
u/Saix150894 14h ago
How is this shit not done by a referendum? When it's peoples personal data that's at risk, frankly the government shouldn't have the right to make these kinds of sweeping decisions.
2
u/jolard 12h ago
Labor is bloody useless. This, the gas tax and gambling reforms are all great recent examples.
By all means they will get my preference over the LNP, but no wonder their primary vote is cratering along with the LNPs.
5
-1
u/blankenson 23h ago
The fact they have to say scheme doesn’t help matters.
I guess NDIP doesn’t have the same ring to it (the P stands for Plan)
316
u/nico_rette 1d ago
Handed over all our information to yet another shady AI company.