A new Australia Institute Paper points out simply taxing gas going overseas would more than pay for the entire NDIS. Labor’s decision to push ahead with these cuts represents a choice, not a necessity.

Greg Jericho’s the Chief Economist for the Australia Institute. Although this is often described as a ‘left-wing think-tank’, there’s never been anything woolly, superficial or confused about his actual analysis.

This has happily been repeated by politicians of every party whenever it suits them, and that’s what makes his detailed new paper so powerful.

Firstly, he establishes the cuts represent a funding drop of up to 12 percent by the end of the decade. The impact is real: a cut to 94 million hours of paid care, the burden of which will fall on families and those least able to find extra resources.

This risks a likely increase in abuse and neglect. It will also slash at professionals supporting people with disability and low-paid workers: the very people who would naturally form part of the political constituency that a Labor government so desperately needs when it seeks re-election.

But his final point is the real kicker.

“The overriding premise that the cuts are required is revealed to be false. A 25 percent tax on gas exports would over the next 4 years raise $31.8 billion more than would be ‘saved’ by the cuts. The level of fuel tax credits to be provided to mining companies over the next 4 years is equivalent to 61 percent of the proposed cuts.”

Jericho’s point is simple: the cuts to the NDIS represent a choice.

______________________________________

[continued from the abilityNEWS newsletter]

Jericho explains the detail in this Australia Institute Facebook video

The paper’s analysis is ruthless in its demolition of unsubstantiated claims. Jericho begins by brushing aside Health Minister Mark Butler’s assertion that “the NDIS will continue to grow every year” as nothing more than “a common rhetorical and budgetary device long used by governments to hide the impact of proposed cuts to services or programs”.

“The Minister’s statement is true only to the extent that the nominal dollar amount is projected to increase.”

Jericho then shows a projection from the Budget Papers - but one not found in anything Butler said or indicated. It shows nominal NDIS spending transforming into a flat line for all the forward years . . . making clear that this represents a significant cut to the program.

“When it was in opposition the Labor party called out the use of the same trick by the Abbott government”, Jericho says. “However even this understates the cuts” he continues.

The paper is short but tight, and unfortunately does not appear to be linked to the web at the moment.

It finishes with the headline “We can afford the NDIS - we just choose not to”.