im not an academic i just have questions... Autistic | ADHD | INFJ | Aries/Taurus cusp | Wood Ox | Life Path 11 | Soul Urge 11 | Personality 11 | Expression 22 | Maturity 33
Ah, the #NDIS budget, that magical creature that somehow manages to claim its administrative costs are low, while administrative tasks are hidden under the guise of “participant support.” It’s like a magician’s sleight of hand, except instead of pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they’re burying costs under categories that don’t quite fit. Let’s break it down: if plan managers and support coordinators are performing #administrative tasks, how exactly is that participant support? They’re not providing therapy or direct care, they’re juggling paperwork, ensuring #compliance & wrangling providers. Yet, somehow this gets tucked under the “support” banner. It’s like saying the HR department is providing “support” by approving payroll. Sure, it’s necessary—but let’s not pretend they’re on the frontlines giving massages. & while we're at it, what's with this "4-7% on admin" fantasy? Are they using monopoly money or counting beans with their eyes closed? If we were to reclassify those sneaky admin-like functions correctly, you'd find the operational cost ballooning like a politician's campaign promises. But, of course, that’s not sexy when you're trying to sell the idea of “lean operations.” Here’s the kicker: the misclassification doesn’t just distort the numbers; it affects the whole conversation about sustainability. If we don’t know what the real costs are, how are we supposed to fix anything? But then again, maybe the real trick is that nobody actually wants to fix it. Why optimize admin when you can simply disguise it? I mean, would NDIS really want us poking around their neat little categories & uncovering the mess beneath? Nah, it’s better to keep the façade of efficiency while the administrative #support scaffolding teeters in the background. So here’s a thought bomb for you: What if we applied some real transparency? Not the kind that makes you think you’re getting a good deal but actual, brutal #transparency where “participant support” means direct care and “administration” means, well, administration. But hey, we all know how much government agencies love an honest self-assessment. Maybe they should run one of those through their plan managers. Let’s not forget that globally, programs tend to have clearer reporting, separating direct support from the bureaucratic layers that keep the wheels turning. But who needs that when you can muddy the waters & keep everyone guessing? At the end of the day, it’s all about appearance. If NDIS can claim low admin costs while really funneling a chunk of that budget into administrative functions under a different name, who’s going to notice? Well, maybe the people who rely on the system will—when the “participant support” they’re promised starts looking more like red tape & paperwork. Mark Sweeney Marie J. Graham Taylor Peter Gregory Ailsa R. Jane Scott ♿ Veronica Stephan-Miller Jarrod Sandell-Hay Samantha Connor Mark Toomey Tara Hannon David Napier Byron Stol Shirley Humphris
Highlighting change possibilities - Human rights
3moNeil Turton-Lane Vrinda Edan