Money-pit mentality must stop or NDIS will unravel

Local and state governments, and even other federal departments, have all but vacated the field for disability services in health, early childhood, education and housing, leaving the NDIS as an all-or-nothing proposition.

Bruce Bonyhady has made it clear that the NDIS has been treated like a bottomless pit of money by too many, and that its cost might be more difficult to rein in than hoped.

It’s not just avaricious or downright dodgy disability service providers, or those with disabilities and their families stretching the definition of “reasonable and necessary” support to its limit that are creating sustainability issues for the NDIS.

Local and state governments, and even other federal departments, have all but vacated the field for disability services in health, early childhood, education and housing, leaving the NDIS as an all-or-nothing proposition.

With their review set to report in October, Bonyhady and his co-chair Lisa Paul are looking to test the waters now by clarifying the scale of the issues at play and ­floating some big ideas about how to fix the scheme’s sustainability problem.

Of particular concern is Bonyhady’s inside knowledge that scheme costs may be rising faster than currently understood, putting national cabinet’s 8 per cent cost growth target by 2026 in doubt. This is a serious budget concern for Anthony Albanese, Jim Chalmers and Bill Shorten as they simultaneously grapple with other demographics – including the costs of an ageing population, as made clear by the Intergenerational Report to be released this week.

Bonyhady says there is a “cliff” between the services available to those on the NDIS and those who don’t qualify, hence the eligibility crush. He wants to smooth that path, with all levels of government offering “foundational” support for all people with disability, and the NDIS coming in over the top for those who need more.

In the case of children with a developmental delay, this would see more support in early childhood settings, in schools and in homes. For older people with disability, it would mean a return to greater local government support to assist with shopping, cooking and cleaning.

A single intergovernmental agreement would be required.

And he is pressing to centralise the determination of what are “reasonable and necessary” supports for NDIS participants, with the current system permitting huge discrepancies between people with similar needs depending on their location or the attitude of their local area co-ordinator.

These won’t be the end of the review’s recommendations. There is much to be done, and corralling local, state and federal governments into co-ordinated action will be a challenge.

But as Bonyhady himself says, “unless significant action is taken, the future of the NDIS will, sooner or later, be endangered.”