"of course its not what you said squidd....but it is the alternative to care for people with disabilities."
No, this discussion isn't binary.
The options aren't; this exact version of the NDIS, or nothing at all.
What I, and others, are saying, is the current settings of the NDIS are not correct. This is making the scheme cost far too much.
Those settings include who is covered, what expenses/costs are covered, and the mechanics such as provider charges.
It all needs a lot of refining.
Shorten himself said the NDIS has become something it was never intended to be. It was supposed to support the most significantly disabled, not, for example, young kids with very mild forms of autism.
11% of young boys are on the NDIS? Ridiculous. 11% of young boys are not profoundly disabled. The State & Territory Governments (mostly Labor if you want to be assigning blame), aren't doing their part to support things such as mild autism, and pretty much everyone is being pushed onto the NDIS. They don't need that level of support, along with the costs that come with it.
This isn't a Labor or Lib fight for me, just fix the thing because it's broken.
Tying this into the thread, the structural deficit would not look anywhere near as bad if the NDIS settings were correct. Playing around with CGT discounts and saving a few billion dollars a year is pocket change when these sort of spending blow outs are occurring.
