19/05/2026
I support cost savings where there is a clear business case.
But with the current NDIS reform agenda, I am not convinced the wider economic impact has been properly explained.
The Federal Budget says NDIS reforms are expected to save $37.8 billion over four years. The Budget also says the NDIS will continue to grow each year, so this is better understood as reduced projected growth, not a simple cash cut.
Still, reduced growth in a labour intensive scheme can affect real jobs, real wages, real families and real communities.
So here is the question:
What does a $6 billion annual saving actually save once the wider economy is counted?
These are rough numbers, not a formal model. Happy to be corrected.
Using the Per Capita / NDS multiplier, every $1 invested in the NDIS has been estimated to generate around $2.25 in broader economic activity.
On that basis, a $6 billion annual reduction could represent up to:
-- $13.5 billion in reduced economic activity
-- around 61,000 economy wide jobs affected
Two important caveats.
First, that multiplier is sector commissioned research, not Treasury modelling.
Second, not all savings are the same. Fraud reduction, billing integrity and genuine efficiency gains are very different from reducing support hours. They should not be treated as the same thing.
But if a $6 billion annual reduction flowed proportionally through a roughly $50 billion scheme, it could expose:
-- 32,000 direct NDIS workers
-- 22,000+ women workers
-- $1.9 billion in direct wages
-- $300 million+ in income tax and Medicare receipts
-- $230 million+ in super contributions
Do not add those numbers to the multiplier. There is likely overlap.
The point is the channel of impact.
Then add unpaid carers.
Australia has around 1.2 million primary carers.
Not all are connected to the NDIS. The actual impact depends entirely on where savings come from.
But if reduced supports caused even 50,000 to 100,000 carers to lose 10 hours a week of paid work, at roughly $35 to $42 per hour, that could expose another:
-- $910 million to $2.18 billion in wages
-- $273 million to $655 million in tax receipts
-- $109 million to $262 million in super contributions
That carer estimate is speculative.
But the order of magnitude is the point.
A $6 billion annual reduction may show up as:
-- fewer paid support hours
-- lower taxable wages
-- lower super contributions
-- lower carer workforce participation
-- more unpaid care inside households
-- increased future Age Pension pressure
And because both the disability support workforce and unpaid carer base are heavily female, much of this likely falls on women.
So where is the business case showing these savings will not create larger costs somewhere else?
Because if savings are achieved by shifting work from paid workers to unpaid carers, reducing women’s workforce participation, cutting super and increasing future pension pressure, that may not be a true saving.
It may be a cost transfer.
From the NDIS budget
to households
to women
to carers
to taxpayers
to the Age Pension.
I am happy to be corrected.
But someone needs to show the numbers, not just assert the savings are real.
Phil Bamback
Disability Support Project
