An Estimate of the Economic Effects of the Implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Dr Brendan LongSenior Research FellowCharles Sturt University

May 2015

An Estimate of the Economic Effects of the Implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Introduction

The primary policy rationale generally presented for the public investment in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) has been to provide a fairer, more effective and efficient suite of supports for those with significant disability. It is a conclusion that followed a comprehensive public consultation process, and subsequent high level research work, by the Productivity Commission report Disability Care and Support 2011 (PC 2011). While this report constitutes one of the finest pieces of analytical work and public policy thinking in recent years, it was not without deficiencies. One of the weaknesses of the report is the paucity of the treatment of employment effects generated from the NDIS. The economy-wide effects of the scheme are primarily driven by these employment gains. Unlike other reports the Productivity Commission did not use its economic model to estimate the final GDP gains from the scheme. Failure to clearly measure the employment effects of the NDIS may explain the lack of a specific measurement of the GDP effects of the scheme by the Productivity Commission.

However, both the direct labour market effects, and associated flow on effects for the whole economy, can be estimated. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Survey of Ageing, Disability and Carers (SDAC) is a comprehensive survey of intentions and labour market conditions for people with disability. Combined with Census data it provides scope to measure the impact of the NDIS on employment, tax revenue created and expenditure saved on reduced payments. These results can be analysed using an Input Output model to calculate the final multiplier effects for the economy from the full implementation of the NDIS.

Table of Content

2

s_Toc418695563An Estimate of the Economic Effects of the Implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme............................................................................................................................................2

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 2

Summary of the economic benefits of the NDIS..............................................................................4

Broad methodology..........................................................................................................................6

Some caveats to the modelling.....................................................................................................7

The Data Sources............................................................................................................................8

Eligibility to participate in the NDIS..................................................................................................9

Updating the model for 2015 figures...........................................................................................10

The employment impact of the NDIS on PWD...............................................................................10

Key assumptions.........................................................................................................................10

The modelling methodology for estimated labour supply growth of PWD from the NDIS...........11

Modelling carer labour force participation......................................................................................15

Box 1: SDAC 2012 Disability status of main recipient of care living in households....................15

Increased income taxation and reduced income support payments from the NDIS.......................20

Deficiencies in the SDAC12 income unit measurement system.................................................20

Use of the Census income distribution.......................................................................................21

New taxation revenue estimate for PWD gaining employment...................................................21

New taxation revenue from carers gaining employment or increasing hours..............................21

Reduction in benefits to PWD and carers from increased labour force participation..................22

The economy-wide benefits of employment growth from PWD and carers as a result of the NDIS.......................................................................................................................................................23

Phasing-in of the economic benefits...........................................................................................28

References.....................................................................................................................................31

Appendix 1: Methodology for profiling the NDIS eligible population from SDAC12........................32

Modelling the NDIS Using SDAC................................................................................................34

Age tests under s22 of the Act....................................................................................................34

Residency requirements under the Act.......................................................................................34

Eligibility under s24(1)(a) – disability test....................................................................................34

Eligibility under s24(1)(b) –permanent disability.........................................................................35

Eligibility under s24(1)(c) – impairments with a substantially reduced functional capacity.........35

Eligibility under s25 – the early intervention category.................................................................37

Appendix 2: Detailed Results for Simulations 1-6..........................................................................39

3

Appendix 3 - List A – Conditions which are likely to meet the disability requirements in s.24 of the NDIS Act........................................................................................................................................ 57

Appendix 4 - List B – Conditions for which permanent impairment/functional capacity are variable and further assessment of functional capacity generally is required..............................................59

4

Summary of the economic benefits of the NDIS

This paper presents the results of research that has measured the employment intentions of people with disability. It uses data available from the ABS in the latest version of SDAC conducted in 2012 and published in November 2013 in summary form and in detailed form in July 2014. Using the work intentions of people with disability who are estimated to be covered by the Scheme, the research estimates that when fully implemented the NDIS will lead to between 25,000 and 40,000 new jobs for persons with significant disability. There will be many other jobs created in other sectors.

Using an input/output econometric tool called REMPLAN1, this research estimates that these employment gains will increase GDP by between approximately $7-11bn in 2015 dollars when the NDIS is fully implemented.

Implementation of the NDIS will also release carers to enter employment or increase hours of work that have been reduced by carer obligations that support under the NDIS can relieve. Once the carer module is included to capture the benefits of increased labour force participation from carers, an additional 34,000 new jobs for their carers (in full-time-equivalents including the impact of increased hours worked by employed carers). This will result in an additional gain to GDP of $11bn.

In total, the projected GDP gain from the NDIS from additional employment of people with disability and their carers will be between $18bn and $23bn.

The increase in disability and carer employment will also increase taxation revenue for the Australian Government and reduce outlays on income support payments. This gain to taxation revenue from additional employment of persons with disability who are estimated to be NDIS eligible participants is $230m-$370m pa. Associated flow on effects of disability employment will also augment taxation revenue. These estimates, while available under the REMPLAN model, have been excluded from the final estimates as an option for conservatism in the modelling, but are not insignificant. Reductions in income support payments are estimated to be $412m-$640m pa.

The gain to taxation revenue from additional carer labour force participation is estimated to be $830m pa with reduced income support of $73m pa.

When combined the total impact on the Budget of the Australian Government associated with the offsets of additional direct taxation revenue and reduced income support outlays when the NDIS is fully implemented is $1.5bn to $1.9bn pa in 2015 dollars.

1 Access to this modelling tool produced by Compelling Economics has been funded by NDS.5

Any analysis of this nature requires the adoption of a number of important assumptions and can only be interpreted as an indicative estimate in the longer term. Important caveats to the modelling are described hereafter. However, the aggregate estimate potential GDP gain of up to $23bn billion is not insignificant in macroeconomic terms. In economic terms alone, the analysis indicates that the NDIS is a very positive policy reform for the Australia community.

Table 1: Results of simulations for 2018/19 in $20152

Simulation number Simulation description GDP effect $Jan 2014 GDP effect $2015/161 Disability employment

growth module 1$10,515.9 $10,726.71

2 Disability employment growth module 2

$7,309.01 $7,455.51

3 Carers entering the labour force

$2,485.75 $2,535.58

4 Simulation 3 including increased hours of work from carers currently employed

$10,511.88 $10,722.57

5 Simulations 1 and 4 combined

$22,174.68 $22,619.14

6 Simulations 2 and 4 combined

$17,818.47 $18,175.62

Table 2: NDIS offsets through additional taxation and reduced income support payments3

Tax and benefit savings Module 1 with

carer effect $M$1,913

Tax and benefit savings Module 2 with

carer effect $M$1,544

The employment gains that drive these GDP gains will start to occur in the NDIS launch roll out sites, As the NDIS moves towards full implementation these aggregate economic gains will start to be realised (as shown in Chart 1 below).

2 The methodology adopted to produce the estimates in Table 1 is explained later in the report.3 This analysis does not include any second round effects of the increase to the Medicare Levy associated with the NDIS

6

Broad methodology

This research involves the construction of an economic model of the long run GDP impact of the NDIS. The supports offered by the NDIS will allow some eligible persons with disability to enter the labour market and will release carers from their care obligations and increase labour force participation. The model estimates the consequent increase in labour supply and assumes it will be absorbed by a rise in labour demand.4 This creates an employment ‘shock’ for the economy. The extra new jobs lead to significant ‘flow on’ gains throughout the wider economy as the income from increased direct employment leads to expansion in other sectors creating the process of cumulative causation typical of the classical multiplier effect in an economy. At times ‘dampeners’ – reductions on these multipliers – are applied in the model. This is a deliberate design choice in order to embody an element of conservatism in the model.

The model has two primary moving components. The foundation of the model is the estimate of the employment shock. This is done using the key ABS survey SDAC 20125 and ABS Census data which is publically available. The economy-wide impact of the shock is then estimated using an Input Output modelling tool called the REMPLAN.

The first stage of the modelling is to estimate the increase to labour supply from the NDIS when it is fully phased-in. The primary statistical challenge and the first stage of the modelling exercise is to align the eligibility tests

4 The model assumes that the labour market clears as is typically the case with long run economic models. 5 See next section for a discussion of SDAC.

7

for funded support under the NDIS with questions asked of SDAC respondents.

The second stage is to identify within SDAC the NDIS eligible population cohort. This allows SDAC to build population estimates and to analyse labour market related questions asked of potential NDIS recipients of working age (15-64). This provides an estimate of the number of potential new employees of people with disability using SDAC 2012 and its analysis of employment restrictions. These are adjusted to 2018/19, the assumed year of full NDIS implementation, using population growth projections published by the ABS.

Carers are also identified using SDAC but an estimate of the proportion of NDIS participants with carer support cannot be measured directly. A proxy measure of carer support for a main recipient of care with a severe or profound restriction in core activities can be applied to estimate this cohort. Measures of hours of work lost by employed carers having to provide care support can be measured from SDAC. From these components, a broad estimate of full-time equivalent jobs of lost hours due to care obligations by carers can be made. The NDIS is assumed to allow these lost hours to be regained. The number of carers who have left the labour force or are unemployed as a result of stated reasons which are likely to be alleviated by funded support under the NDIS is also estimated. These careers are assumed to return to work as a result of the NDIS.The additional employment of persons with disability and carers will generate new taxation revenue. This is estimated in the model. In addition, this employment will reduce income support for persons with disability and carers. This is also estimated in the model.

The last stage is to use the REMPLAN econometric modelling tool to measure the overall impact of these various potential employment growth scenarios on the Australian economy from the implementation of the NDIS.

Some caveats to the modelling

Analysis of this nature necessarily involves a range of assumptions. We cannot be sure that the NDIS will empower persons who receive funded support to overcome their employment restrictions. The NDIS is not a labour market program. It is an improved funding system to empower persons with significant disability to obtain the support they need. The model is designed to measure the scope of the scheme to empower people with disability to achieve their capabilities. In the final analysis, the outcomes will be dependent on how they and employers respond to the new arrangements.

The effectiveness of the NDIS will depend in significant measure on what people with disability and employers make of it. The modelling recognises this, within the constraints of any economic model, by estimating the labour force implications of NDIS participants attaining their stated work intentions. The supports they will enjoy will have significant benefits for their lives as a whole. Improved access to services, increased personal power and control over their lives, increased support for carers and better funding of services will help to empower them to overcome their stated barriers to obtaining work or seeking work.

8

The modelling recognises that success will not necessarily be universal. Some barriers to employment are more readily overcome than others and the NDIS is likely to assist this process.This uncertainty has been attempted to be included in the model by providing a more optimistic base case scenario (Module 1) where work intentions are realised and all restrictions are overcome to a more limited scenario (Module 2) where the potential pool of new employees with disability is restricted to those with a stated work intention but with a narrower range of employment restrictions which may more easily be able to be overcome as a result of funded support under the NDIS. In either case, the philosophy which underpins the analysis is that the NDIS will empower people with disability to achieve their stated work intentions and their expectations. What the model cannot consider is the impact of the NDIS on their work aspirations. It may well be the case that, over time, support under the NDIS enhances their work aspirations leading to even better labour market outcomes.

The modelling works from the stated work intentions of people with disability (PWD) who are eligible for support under the NDIS. The way the legislation and associated rules are drafted gives the NDIA significant discretion as to determining the eligibility of a person to the Scheme. The modelling cannot cater for every individual case and cannot predict how the regulator will interpret marginal cases for eligibility. This problem is highlighted by the decision to exclude from the model the basis of eligibility associated with the need for assistance with social participation or the use of aids, equipment or home modifications which are relevant to assessing eligibility under the NDIS.

The model does not seek to stratify the population of PWD by key characteristics that might affect employment prospects. Disability type, age, sex, linguistic and cultural background, education or employment history might be expected to impact on the chances of a jobseeker with disability finding employment. These variables are used by the Government in assessing provider performance in the JSA and DES schemes. However, this is an econometric exercise designed to measure the broad macroeconomic impact of a significant growth in disability employment that could flow from full implementation of the NDIS. The model is not, in itself, intended to be a comprehensive model of how people with disability engage with the labour market. Ultimately, the model presents an aggregate picture of disability employment, grouping together all of the labour market interactions of persons with disability in their specific cohorts. Breaking the labour force supply into different strata (by age, sex etc.) will produce the same aggregate result.

Another important caveat to any modelling of this nature is that it is a model of labour supply not labour demand. As with most economic models of this nature, it is assumed that the labour market will clear and that labour demand for persons with disability funded under the NDIS will rise to meet increased labour supply. In particular, it is assumed that people now unemployed with disability who will be funded under the NDIS will find employment and those who enter the labour force will find work. A possible further approach to this problem, heightened by low disability employment rates, would be to assume that PWD only attained their work aspirations in proportion to the current rate of employment for those with disability who are in the labour force. This would, of course, scale back the projected employment gains and GDP effects measured for the NDIS. Building impediments to labour force activation for PWD into a model of disability employment would be a significant research task in itself. It should be noted that building into any labour market model an element of disequilibrium where unemployment is persistent is challenging and risks becoming the focal point of the whole analysis. It also exceeds the scope of this particular research project. The option taken in this project of assuming increased labour

9

supply is met by increased demand has the benefit of providing a clear reflection of the work preferences of people with disability, as evidenced by SDAC, and a more transparent modelling analysis. However, constructing a model of disability employment that provides for impediments in labour force demand for people with disability (through, for example, dealing with informational asymmetries faced by employers when considering employment of PWD) would be a profitable line of theoretical and applied economic research in the Australian context.

A further caveat of the model is that psychiatric disability is not provided for directly. While SDAC will include some of those with permanent psychiatric disorders and measure their work intentions, it is likely that his cohort is significantly under-reported. The Productivity Commission included an estimate of those with permanent psychiatric disorders who would be eligible for support under the NDIS without reference to SDAC. This model has not followed this approach in order to maximise alignment of the model with the ABS data. This decision has led to a reduction in the estimate of employment gains from this significant and growing cohort of people with enduring disability.

The Data Sources

SDAC is the most detailed source of statistical information available into the incidence of disability in Australia. It is a very potent analytical resource and is now produced every three years. The survey is based on a sample size of over 75,000 persons – about one 300th of the Australian population. This makes SDAC the largest sample survey conducted by the ABS. Numerous questions are asked of the disability cohort in SDAC in relation to the nature of the disability, the impairment experienced by the person with disability, the demographic, household and labour market status of the person with disability. The labour market component of the survey is sufficiently detailed to assess the extent to which the disability impairs the labour market aspirations of the person with disability. SDAC also includes a carer module which reports the incidence of caring, the nature of the care support and a range of responses to questions relating to the impact on the carer. One of these sets of questions relates to the labour market implications of providing caring duties.

This research accesses SDAC through the 2012 Confidentialised Unit Record File (CURF) and the Tablebuilder research tool associated with SDAC 2012. The CURF allows the researcher to view almost every survey response. Within the household component of the survey, data can be viewed at the ‘person level’ indicating an individual’s responses to specific questions. SDAC also provides data at higher levels of aggregate (Household, Family, Income Unit) which has also been accessed to supplement the research. There is a high degree of granularity in the data in relation to disability types and levels of impairment with generally low relative standard errors.6 This makes SDAC CURF 2012 the best statistical data source to profile the potential population of the NDIS.

Although questions in relation to the need for assistance are asked in the Census, this dataset does not provide sufficient detail of the level of impairment caused by a disability that is required

6 Following normal statistical practice the ABS indicates that relative standard errors between 25% and 50% are to treated with caution and those over 50% are considered unreliable: see Technical Note to SDAC in ABS 4430.0 at http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4430.0Technical+Note952012.

10

to access to the NDIS. However, this dataset from Census 2011 has also been analysed using the publically available Tablebuilder tool for this dataset to enumerate an income distribution for persons with disability. This is required to measure taxation and income support changes associated with measured employment gains from SDAC 2012. It is assumed that this enumerated income distribution under Census 2011 is stable over the period of examination (2011-2018) and can be indexed under standard economic parameters published in Statement 1 of the Budget Papers to produce 2014 dollar estimates.

Eligibility to participate in the NDIS

A key analytical task in modelling the employment shock is to connect statutory/regulatory grounds for entitlement to the NDIS with the statistical categories applied by the ABS in SDAC12. The analysis is complex and substantive discussion of the methodology applied is presented in Appendix 1. The great statistical power of SDAC 2012 is that it provides a capacity to measure the expected NDIS population against the legislation, Rules and Operational Guidelines on Access. The detail provided in the SDAC 2012 CURF is significant, the sample size is large, and the questions asked of respondents are in large part able to be connected with the eligibility criteria. There is a high degree of granularity in the data when referring to level and nature of disability. For the most part the relative standard errors are moderately low due to the high sample size. A perfect alignment between any major statistical survey and a suite of legislation and regulation is not a realistic possibility. At times assumptions are required to apply a statistically measured cohort with an expected cohort of persons eligible under legislation and associated regulations. In respect to some elements of the eligibility criteria, the data is not sufficiently aligned to provide a valuable statistical estimate of sub-cohorts of the potential NDIS eligible population. These cases are noted in Appendix 1. However, on the whole the SDAC CURF does provide a sufficient statistical basis for measuring the expected NDIS population when the scheme is fully implemented for the purposes of configuring a model of potential economy-wide economic effects of the NDIS.

Updating the model for 2015 figures

As a long run model, the NDIS population estimates are based on the implementation of the NDIS by June 2018. The 2012 SDAC base is indexed to 2018 levels using standard ABS population growth estimates. Table 3 below lists the estimated NDIS eligible. The presentation moves from left to right and categories identified are mutually exclusive. By this it is meant that if a person is already identified in a category (from the left) they are not included in a category subsequently identified.7

7 It is noted that once the modelling has proceeded all persons potentially included in the NDIS participation cohort from List B of the Operational Guidelines on Access have already been identified in List A. SDAC listed disability types in List B often overlap with those in List A. SDAC does not identify any PWD in list B not already included in List A of the Operational Guidelines on Access who meet the impairment test. This result is not unexpected and also occurred in previous modelling exercises undertaken. Consequently, Table 3 does not include a separate heading for potential NDIS participants eligible by virtue of a disability specified in List B of the Operational Guidelines on Access in Appendix 4.

11

Table 3: Estimated NDIS working age population

‘000Persons

aged 15-64

With a condition in List A, (see Appendix 3)

With an impairment

in core activities requiring

assistance on a daily basis (not otherwise included)

Early intervention group (not otherwise included)

With an impairment in learning requiring

assistance on a daily basis (not otherwise included)

With an impairment

in self-management

requiring assistance on a daily basis (not otherwise included)

Total

As identified in SDAC

2012 CURF97 124.7 87.9 21.5 12.7 343.8

The employment impact of the NDIS on PWD

Key assumptions

Now that the NDIS participating cohort has been identified in SDAC12, questions in relation to employment intentions can be applied to this cohort to estimate the employment impact of the NDIS. The approach taken is that of revealed preference theory in economics. This approach, in short, is to assume that the preferences of individuals are given effect in market processes. In the context of this modelling this means that the employment intentions of PWD identified in responses to employment related questions in SDAC12 are assumed to be genuine reflections of labour market intentions which can be activated as a result of support provided for under the NDIS when fully implemented. It can be noted that again, that in the case of disability employment, there may be some inertia in the achievement of worker preferences. However, the complexity of modelling such inertia would substantially reduce the clarity and transparency of the model.8

There are many reasons why PWD fail to activate their stated work intentions. Some of these reasons are identified in SDAC. Some have employment restrictions or special needs in the workplace. The NDIS does not provide specific funding for employment support for eligible recipients as part of a package of support to meet employment needs. However, the NDIS provides a range of supports that can empower eligible PWD to realise their work intentions by providing important ancillary support like attendant care, transport and equipment needs which will enhance their capacity to achieve their work intentions.

To estimate the impact of the NDIS on achievement of work intentions for eligible PWD the modelling makes the following assumptions:

1. A stated intention to seek work for an eligible PWD will be achieved as a result of NDIS package of support;

2. Where the eligible PWD has an identified work restriction which can be dealt with by the NDIS, this work restriction will be overcome and employment will be achieved;

8 There may be scope to examine disability employment as a line of research in behavioural economics particularly in relation to analysis of hiring behaviour.

12

3. New employment will be allocated to part-time or full-time status based on the proportion of part-time/full-time work measured in SDAC12 for all employed PWD.

It is admitted that such assumptions assume that any increase in labour supply from eligible PWD will be absorbed by labour demand and wage income attained will reflect average PWD wage outcomes. This is implicitly an assumption of ideal labour market functioning: the labour market clears and employment preferences are attained. While this could be deemed to be an optimistic assumption given the rigidities in the labour market experienced generally by PWD in Australia, it is a standard economic modelling procedure in modelling shocks to the labour market from increases to labour supply. Accounting for labour market rigidities on the demand side would introduce significant complexity to the modelling, introducing an element of uncertainty which is not warranted in this analysis. If it is deemed that a labour market constraint should be applied at the demand side for PWD then this constraint could be applied to scale back estimated employment and GDP gains from the modelling. Such an approach could, for example, assume that only half of employment preferences are attained. In loyalty to revealed preference theory approaches and standard modelling methods of labour market analysis this modelling does not seek to capture the effect of these rigidities, but it is again noted that this an area of important theoretical research for modelling disability employment in the economic policy community.

The modelling methodology for estimated labour supply growth of PWD from the NDIS

The employment component of SDAC 2009 is sophisticated and asks a range of questions in relation to work intentions and restrictions to employment faced by people with disability. One of the key improvements in SDAC12 relative to SDAC09 is that the key employment questions are directed more closely at people with disability both unemployed and not in the labour force. SDAC09 suffered the significant limitation of failing to ask employment related questions critical to all the right people. A key question posed in SDAC09 was whether persons with disability want to enter employment. SDAC 2009 asked the question of whether people with disability are available to take up a job in 4 weeks, but this is only asked of those unemployed. The direct question ‘do you want to work?’ should have been asked of those outside the labour force directly. This deficiency results from the reality that many PWD with significant impairments are on DSP and therefore not in the labour force. So this question in SDAC09 did capture the full range of work intentions of PWD who can enjoy NDIS support. SDAC12 has adopted a better question following feedback from NDS as part of consultation through the SDAC Reference Group. The author notes the positive response of the ABS to the feedback offered by NDS as part of the consultation process for preparation of the SDAC12 survey round. SDAC12 asks the question “do you intend to seek work in the next 12 months?” and now measures responses from persons either unemployed or not in the labour force. This allows the modelling to better capture the impact of the NDIS on the key target group of PWD potentially able to be activated into employed by the NDIS.

Under the methodology outlined in the previous sections, the NDIS eligible population has been identified in SDAC12. Consequently, the responses to the “intends to work within the next 12

13

months” question can be asked of the NDIS cohort identified. In SDAC12 20,497 PWD eligible for the NDIS indicated they intended to seek work within the next 12 months.

In addition to the employment question in relation to work intention, SDAC asks people of working age with disability if they have an employment restriction and the nature of the restriction. Table 4 below shows possible responses.

Table 4: Type of employment restriction of people with disability.

Types of Employment restriction: All people aged 15-64 with disability living in households 1. Restricted in type of job 2. Restricted in number of hours . 3. Difficulty changing jobs or getting a preferred job 4. Need for time off from work (at least one day per week) 5. Need for employer provided equipment and/or special arrangements 6. Need for support person at work or is receiving assistance from a disability job

placement program or agency 7. Need for ongoing supervision or assistance 8. Permanently unable to work 9. No employment restrictions . 10.Not applicable

Source: SDAC 2012

Answers 1-7 indicate that the person with disability has an employment restriction, but are not permanently unable to work. Option 8 provides a preliminary indication that the respondent is not seeking to enter the labour market, response 9 indicates that the respondent’s disability is not a labour market impediment and Option 10 relates to those who are not in the relevant population (meaning essentially they do not have a disability; are outside the relevant age range or do not live in households and, therefore, excludes people living in establishments). The number of respondents who indicate their employment restriction was 1 to 7 can be taken as a proxy for a self-identified capacity to work. This is because it involves a rejection of response 8 – a self-identified incapacity to work.

The depth of the SDAC Survey also produces insights into the responses of those who stated that their employment restriction made them inactive in the labour market. This cohort was then asked a supplementary question: what would enable your labour market participation? The possible responses are listed in Table 5 below.

Table 5: What would enable a person with disability outside the labour market not now seeking to enter the labour market to participate in the labour market

14

What would enable your labour market participation: 1. Training2. Equipment 3. Working at home 4. Time off 5. Assistance with work or personal care tasks 6. Other 7. Could not work at all 8. Not applicable

Source: SDAC 2012

2.5% of those who were in the relevant population that indicated they were “permanently unable to work" (i.e. employment restriction Option 8 in Table 4) but indicated that their labour force participation could be enabled with supports 1,2 or 5 in Table 5. These three supports are supports that NDIS is expected to provide.

The modelling of the potential employment gains from the NDIS takes two approaches: a more optimistic assessment of the impact of the NDIS on work aspirations and a more modest assessment. The optimistic model, labelled Module 1, assumes: All intentions to work of NDIS eligible PWD unemployed or outside the labour force flowing

from a positive answer to the question “whether intends to look for work in the next 12 months” are realised; and

If a work restriction for NDIS eligible PWD is identified in the coding of 1-7 in Table 4 they will find work

If a person who stated they cannot work at all under coding 8 of Table 4 but stated that could work with supports 1,2 or 5 in Table 5 then their work intentions are realised. Respondents who indicate work capacity with supports 3,4, or 6 are excluded.

Measures are taken to avoid double counting.9

A more conservative model, labelled Module 2, is applied with the following assumptions: All intentions to work of NDIS eligible PWD unemployed or outside the labour force flowing

from a positive answer to the question “do you intend to look for work in the next 12 months” are realised; and

If a work restriction for NDIS eligible PWD is identified in the coding of only 5 or 7 in Table 4 they will find work, with measures taken to avoid double counting with the work intention questions just noted. This choice reflects a more restricted application of the capacity of PWD who are NDIS eligible to activate their work intentions. Items 1-4 in Table 4 reflect more labour market demand related issues that the NDIS may have limited capacity to influence. Item 6 in Table 4 appears to relate more to the services provided under the Disability Employment Support (DES) program which is a separate program of publically funded support for PWD than the NDIS.

If a person who stated they cannot work at all under coding 8 of Table 4 but stated that could work with support in coding only 1,2 or 5 of Table 5 then their work intentions are

9Although a worker might have two restrictions dealt with by the NDIS he/she can only be activated once into employment once.

15

realised. Respondents who indicate work capacity with supports 3,4, or 6 are excluded and measures are taken to avoid double counting.

On the whole the two modules present a range of possible employment growth scenarios for PWD who are NDIS eligible. The new jobs created will not all be full-time. They are allocated between part-time and full-time status on the basis of the proportions of these labour market categories shown by SDAC12 in relation to all PWD in employment. The results of the additional jobs created by the NDIS for PWD are presented in Table 6 below.

Table 6: New jobs created by the NDIS for PWD: Module 1 and 2

2012 Estimates 2018 EstimatesForm of

labour market entry

New jobs created

by activation of work intention by NDIS support

Model 1 - exclusive

of jobs created

by explicit work

intention

Model 2 - exclusive

of jobs created

by explicit work

intention

Total module 1

Total module 2

Total module

1

Total module 2

Full-time 5609 20188 10101 25797 15710 28612 17424Part-time 2205 19203 12114 21408 14319 23744 15881Full-time

Equivalents6712 29790 16158 36501 22870 40484 25365

Previous Labour market status of new employeesUnemployed seeking full-time work

1144 7102 2104 8246 3248 9146 3602

Unemployed seeking part-

time work

450 6756 2523 7206 2973 7992 3297

Not in the labour force gaining full-time work

4466 13086 7997 17353 12456 19247 13815

Not in the labour force gaining part-

time work

1755 12447 9591 14401 11353 15972 12592

Persons not in the labour force are allocated to full-time or part-time positions on a proportion of full and part-time status of persons with disability seeking work on a full or part-time basis in SDAC12. Module 1 includes those with a work intention an employment restrictions 1-7 in Table 4 and responses 1,2, and 5 in Table 5 of restriction 8.Module 2 includes those with a work intention and employment restrictions 1,2,5 in Table 4 and responses 1, 2 and 5 in Table 5 of restriction 8.The indexation factor from SDAC12 to 2018/19 figures based on population growth factor of 1.109 from ABS estimates. Summation across rows will encounter rounding errors.

16

Modelling carer labour force participation

One of the principal ways in which the NDIS can create economic benefits for the wider economy is by empowering carers to increase their labour force participation. This can be achieved by provision of funded support under the Scheme which would releasing them from carer duties. SDAC12 does provide a basis for measuring the potential increase to labour force participation of carers as a result of the implementation of the NDIS. One of the features of SDAC is that it focuses on three distinct population cohorts: people with disability, their carers and aged persons. These three cohorts are treated separately in large part. People with disability are not asked a complex array of questions in relation to their carer support and are not actually asked if they have a carer.The NDIS eligible population who enjoy carer support is not directly identifiable in SDAC and this is a deficiency of the survey design. However, as with other elements of this widely encompassing survey, a range of questions asked of people with disability provide for a basis to arrive at a reasonable measure of the NDIS eligible population who receive carer support.

Box 1: SDAC 2012 Disability status of main recipient of care living in households

  Has disability and profoundly restricted in core activities 355.4Has disability and severely restricted in core activities 252.2Has disability and moderately restricted in core activities 10.5Has disability and mildly restricted in core activities 19.2Has disability not restricted in core activities, restricted in schooling/ employment *2.4Has disability and not restricted in core activities, schooling or employment **1.0Total 640.6

17

Chart 2: Primary carers by disability status of main recipient of care

Disability status of main usually resident recipient of care

Has disability and

profoundly restricted in

core activities

Has disability

and severely

restricted in core

activities1 No alternative care arrangements available 24.6 5.6 6.8 3.1

2Financial considerations / cost of alternative care arrangements 1.9 0 0 0

3 Unable to change working arrangements 1 0 0.9 04 Emotional obligations 6.3 2.1 5.2 1.95 Preferred to care full-time 13.1 4.4 5.6 06 Other 2.3 0 0.9 0

Total 50.9 11.7 18.6 4Table 7: Main reason had to leave work to care for main recipient of care, Disability status of main usually resident recipient of care and carers aged 15 to 64 years, in households

As indicated earlier, SDAC does not ask PWD if they have a carer. This makes measurement carer of NDIS eligible persons more complex. The approach taken to measure the cohort of NDIS eligible persons who receive carer support is to ask carers if they provide carer support to those with profound or severe disability. This can be measured directly in SDAC12 and measured using

18

the Tablebuilder analytical tool available for SDAC12. The survey of primary carers living in households if they had to leave work to care for the main recipient of care. Using Tablebuilder responses to this question can be cross tabulated against the age of the carer to identify those of working age and whether the main recipients of care had a profound or severe disability. The reasons for leaving work are reported. The results of this cross-tabulation are presented in Table 7. Items 1-3 are reasons for leaving work that could be expected to be addressed through support for the care recipient under the NDIS.

SDAC also asks primary carers living in households whether they “would like to be employed while caring for main recipient of care” and on what basis. This is asked of the population “Primary carers aged 15 years or more, living in households, who are unemployed or not in the labour force” which can be restricted to persons aged 15-64 using additional Tablebuilder cross tabulations. The results are shown in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Primary carers living in households who “would like to be employed while caring for main recipient of care” and on what basis

Disability status of main usually resident recipient of care

Has disability and severely restricted in

core activities

Has disability and profoundly restricted in

core activities

Profoundly or severely restricted in core activities

Carers aged 15 to 64 years, living in households

Person aged 15-64

Not in this population

Person aged 15-64

Not in this population

Whether would like to be employed while caring for main recipient of care - FT/PTWould like to work full-time 8.2 0 7.8 0 6.60%Would like to work part-time 29.6 4.5 54.3 2.7 34.58%Would not like to work 53.2 44.2 87 90.6 57.79%Total 92.4 48.9 150.2 94.3 100.00%

Notes: RSEs in Table 8 are all under 25%.

There are two further complications to modelling the number of carers who will re-enter the labour force as a result of the NDIS. The first is that it is important to restrict the potential carer workforce to those who care for a main recipient under the age of 65. Those recipients over 65 will not normally be eligible for funded support under the Scheme. This cross tabulation is not possible with Tablebuilder or the CURF. Table 7 below shows the proportion of care recipients with profound and severe disabilities who are within 15-64 age range. Approximately 27% of this cohort are outside the 15-64 age range [165/(441+165)]. So for simplicity, the primary carer population is reduced by 25% to reflect the age restriction of the NDIS.

19

20

Table 9: The age of care recipients with severe or profound disabilities

Persons (4) and Persons aged 15 to 64 years, living in households by Disability status of main UR recipient of care (from SDAC12)

Disability status of main usually resident (UR) recipient of care

Has disability

and profoundl

y restricted in core

activities

Has disability

and severely restricted in core

activities

Total

Persons (4) Persons aged 15 to 64 years, living in households

Persons (4) ((000's))

Person aged 15-64 living in a household

246.8 192.7 440.9

Not in this population 107.9 58.2 164.9

The second complication is the issue of including care recipients who do not normally reside with the care provider. There is also no way to include this cohort directly in the modelling of Table 7 using SDAC. However, SDAC does provide an estimate of the proportion of non-usually resident care recipients to usually resident (UR) care recipients of possible primary carers. This is shown in Table 10 as 15% (130.6/868.8).

Table 10: Care recipients Non-UR and UR

Disability, Ageing and Carers, 2012: Possible primary carers, aged 15 years or more, living in households, who care for UR recipients by Persons

Possible primary carers, aged 15 years or more, living in households, who care for UR recipients

868.8

Primary carers, living in households, who care for non-UR recipients by Persons (4)

Primary carers, living in households, who care for non-UR recipients 130.6

The results of Tables 7 -10 can be combined to estimate the number of carers who will gain employment as a result of an NDIS package received by the main recipient of their care. The proportion of carers who state they left work for reasons covered by the NDIS (as represented in Table 8) is multiplied by the proportion of carers who indicate that they seek to work.10 This product is then scaled back by 25% to account for the cohort of main UR care recipients who are over the age 65. The number of non-UR care recipients is calculated and added to this product to produce a final estimate of the increase in carer workforce as a result of the NDIS. This estimate

10 This process is possible as they population of carers who indicate a work intention (in Table 9) is a subset of the same population of working age primary carers for whom the main recipient of care has a profound or severe employment restriction. The relative standard errors remain with the acceptable range.

21

also allows for growth in the carer population from 2012 to 2018 based on ABS population growth estimates. The results are presented in Table 11.

Table 11: Primary carers, living in households, aged 15-64 who will gain employment as a result of the main recipient receiving an NDIS funded package of assistance

2012 New carers with recipients under 65

Non-UR as a % of

URRecipients

New carers if non-UR recipients

Total carers 2012

Total Carers2018

New carers

working FT2322 1741 15.03% 262 2003 2221

New carers

working PT

12173 9130 15.03% 1372 10503 11649

Total new carers FTE 8408 6306 15.03% 948 7254 8046

Extra jobs for carers

due to extra hours

27150 20363 15.03% 3061 23423 25979

Total new carers FTE and extra hours FTE

35558 26669 15.03% 4009 30678 34025

In addition to the increment to labour supply from carers seeking to gain employment, which is assumed to be met by labour demand, there is also the question of the extent to which carers currently employed will be able to expand their labour force participation as a result of the NDIS. This is a significant factor as many carers have to scale back employment as a result of care obligations. SDAC12 provides the capacity to measure this factor. The survey asks primary carers living in households about the reduction in weekly hours worked since commencing the caring role. Results from this cohort can be cross tabulated with the working age of primary carers and the disability status of the main recipient of care using the Tablebuilder facility. Identifying the disability of the main recipient of care as having a restriction in profound or severe disability in core activities allows an estimate of the weekly hours lost by carers of NDIS eligible care recipients. SDAC12 specifies the number of hours lost due to care. While data is presented in SDAC12 for each individual hour of work lost, the option of adopting a range of reduced work has been chosen to avoid low sample sizes and high relative standard errors associated with the more granular hourly data. This analysis applies the population in these ranges to assume the number of jobs lost in full-time equivalents. For those who work, but indicate hours of work lost due to care in specified ranges, the midpoint of these ranges is taken to calculate total hours lost. Those who indicate 30 or more hours lost are assumed to work 33.5 hours. The total hours lost is divided by 37.5 hours to attain a measure of full-time equivalent jobs lost per primary carer

22

employed with reduced hours. The estimated new jobs created by increased hours worked by carers is almost 26,000: a significant boost to labour supply. These hours are estimated to be regained as a result of the NDIS following the above mentioned assumption of the modelling that increases in labour supply will be met by increases in labour demand.

The carer employment module is derived from the measure of carers where the main recipient of care has a profound or severe impairment in core activities. This method is different from the application of SDAC12 CURF data to PWD. There is no capacity to align the carer module with the disability employment module for the reasons noted above. The carer employment module is assumed to apply to both Module 1 and Module 2 of the PWD employment analysis. It is expected that Module 1 would involve more significant carer employment effects than Module 2. This element cannot be provided for in the modelling. The carer employment component is best understood as capturing the average impact of PWD gaining employment on carers between PWD employment Modules 1 and 2.

Table 12 Reduction in weekly hours worked since commencing caring role (in ranges) by Persons, Persons aged 15 to 64 years, living in households and Disability status of main usually resident recipient of care

Reduction in weekly hours worked since commencing caring role (in ranges)

Has disability and profoundly restricted in core activities

Has disability and severely restricted in core activities

Weekly hours of (median of range)

000 hours reduced by carers for NDIS recipients

No reduction or increase in weekly hours worked since commencing caring role

56.9 80.2

1-9 6.4 4.6 5 5510-19 14.6 5 15 29420-29 11.1 5 25 402.530+ 4.3 3.6 33.75 266.625Did not have job prior to caring role 2.8 0.8

Total 96.2 99.5 1018.125

Full-time equivalent of new hours worked using median hours worked assuming working week is 37.5 hours for a full-time job actual jobsSDAC12 estimates 27150SDAC12 estimates adjusted for age 15-64 and non UR care recipients 234232018 population 25979

23

Increased income taxation and reduced income support payments from the NDIS

The creation of new employment opportunities from the NDIS for PWD and their carers will naturally increase revenue to the Australian Government from additional personal taxation and will involve reduced payments on income support. Standard taxation revenue analysis measures change in the tax base/or change to the tax rate. In this case there is an increase in the taxation base from labour force expansion. The relevant tax rates are listed in the personal income tax tables. Modelling of income support reductions follows a similar method measuring reduction in the income of beneficiaries which are then applied to the benefit eligibility rules. Full compliance is assumed following standard modelling procedure.

Deficiencies in the SDAC12 income unit measurement system

One of the challenges in measuring the extra taxation revenue from earnings of PWD gaining employment is that SDAC12 does not produce an income distribution for individual PWD in published results or even in the CURF. This is because of the way that the Survey is constructed. One of the characteristics of SDAC is that it operates in ten different levels:

Box 2: Levels in SDAC12

1. Household2. Family

3. Income Unit4. Person

5. All conditions6. Restrictions7. Specific activities8. All recipients (not available on TableBuilder)9. Broad activities

10. Assistance providers(see 4430.0.30.002 - Microdata: Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia, 2012).

Levels 1-4 are in a hierarchy; the population of 4 is a subset of 3 which is a subset 2 which is a subset of 1. This means that each of these levels has its own survey question set which are not directly transferable between levels. Questions in relation to income are asked of the income unit. This is not the same as a person. An income unit is defined as:

A person or a group of related persons within a household, whose command over income is assumed to be shared. Income sharing is assumed to take place within married (registered or de facto) couples, and between parents and dependent children (see 4430.0 - Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings, 2012 – Glossary).

24

Given the essentially individual form of taxation present in Australia this income unit is not a reliable guide to taxation liability of a new employee. While the number of persons in an income unit is produced in the survey, the labour force status of each of these persons is not published. Consequently, it is not possible to find the income distribution of PWD in SDAC12.

Use of the Census income distribution

The 2011 Census includes a question on the need for assistance with core activities. Responses on this question can be cross tabulated with information on income and labour market status using the Census 11 Tablebuilder analytical tool. Unlike SDAC12, Census11 measures income at the level of the person in their usual place of residence. From Census11 an income distribution of persons with a need for assistance with core activities can be derived by labour market status. This has been restricted to persons aged 15-64 of working age.

New taxation revenue estimate for PWD gaining employment

The additional taxation revenue estimate is obtained in the following way: Divide the cohort of new employees with PWD with core limitations into four groups:

1. Those moving into full-time employment from unemployment;2. Those moving into part-time employment from unemployment;3. Those moving into full-time employment from outside the labour force;4. Those moving into part-time employment from outside the labour force.

These sub-cohorts are shown in Table 6 (with the cohort of PWD outside the labour force allocated to full-time and part-time positions using the proportions of full-time and part-time employment for NDIS eligible PWD shown in Table 6 in the last 4 rows).

Measure the weighted mean income of PWD in full-time and part-time employment from the income distribution from Census11 for people in need of assistance with core activities.

Assess the taxation liability from the 2015/16 tax tables for these mean income levels. This assumes no taxation deductions.

Assess the Medicare levy for 2015/16 for these mean income levels including the reduced levy for small incomes.

Add the income tax and Medicare levy liability for these two incomes. Apply relevant tax offsets (DICTO or Working Credit) or Medicare Levy offsets. Multiply the income tax/Medicare levy payments to the number of new jobs gained in Table

6. The results are presented in Table 13.

New taxation revenue from carers gaining employment or increasing hours

The procedure for estimating the taxation revenue gains from carers entering the labour force is more straightforward. Unlike people with disability, carer’s incomes will more closely align with

25

the normal income distribution of employed persons.11 Consequently, measures of Average Weekly Earnings (AWE) can be applied to measure expected taxation changes.

However, here are some new complexities. The analysis so far has assumed that a part-time position is half of a full-time position. This process has been included for simplicity and transparency in the analysis and in consistent with data shown for PWD in SDAC. In fact, for the mainstream population it may also be an option for conservatism in the measure of the economic gains from employment as the ABS survey on 6306.0 - Employee Earnings and Hours, Australia, May 2012 indicates that full-time hours for non-managerial works are 39.4 hours per week for full-time employees and 22.9 for part-time employees. This means that a part-time position is effectively 58% of a full-time position. This module retains the method of measuring part-time employment as 50% of a full-time position to maintain consistency in the analysis. It also builds into the modelling of taxation gains a measure of conservatism.

The method of calculating the taxation and Medicare levy impacts is as follows.1. Apply the tax and Medicare Levy tables to the average weekly earnings for full-time and

part-time workers including the application of the Disability Income and Carers Tax Offset (DICTO) of $2,535.

2. Multiply these taxation liabilities by the number of carers entering the labour force in full-time and part-time roles;

3. Take the number of extra hours worked from carers measured in Table 12 and multiply this by the estimated hours wage rate (AWE divided by 37.5 hours) and apply this to the appropriate marginal tax rate and Medicare Levy rate. No deductions are assumed and the DICTO is already assumed to have been applied in previous hours worked and is ignored for this calculation.

4. Sum the results in steps 2 and 3.

The full results from the taxation module of the research are presented in Table 13.

Reduction in benefits to PWD and carers from increased labour force participation

Many PWD and their carers are in receipt of high levels of income support which would be reduced when their labour force participation increases as a result of the NDIS. This effect is incorporated into the modelling.

The four previously identified cohorts of PWD gaining employment are also applied here to measure the reduction in income support. This categorisation allows the modelling to calculate Centrelink benefits lost as a result of increased labour force participation of PWD from the NDIS.

1. Those moving into full-time employment from unemployment.

Here the full-value of Newstart benefits per recipient is a direct saving to government as the recipient would to need meet eligibility for the benefit.11 Modelling a specific income distribution for carers is a further possible line of research, as the need for care obligations may reduce incomes below AWE levels.

26

2. Those moving into full-time employment from outside the labour force;

Here the full annual value of the DSP per recipient is a direct saving to government as the recipient would need to meet eligibility for the benefit.

3. Those moving into part-time employment from unemployment;

The measure of the income of persons in part-time employment from Census11 (updated to 2015 numbers) is applied to the eligibility rules for Newstart to determine the reduced benefit level on average for persons in this category allowing for the Working Credit arrangements.

4. Those moving into part-time employment from outside the labour force.

The measure of the income of persons in part-time employment from Census11 (updated to 2015 numbers) is applied to the eligibility rules for DSP to determine the reduced benefit level on average for persons in this category allowing for the Working Credit arrangements.Carers who gain full-time work will lose carer payment and carer allowance. The proportion of carers who receive payment or allowance where the main recipients of care have a profound or severe core activity limitation can be measured from SDAC (these are 25% for carer payment and 43% for carer allowance). Savings from carers entering full-time employment are measured as the value of the carer payment and allowance received on average multiplied by the number of extra full-time jobs.

The situation is more complex with carers who gain part-time employment. Carer payment faces the DSP means test but carer allowance does not. The income from part-time employment at 50% of AWE is sufficient to eliminate eligibility for carer payment for carers who gain part-time employment at this level. No savings from carer payment occur in this case. Savings are then measured as the proportion of carers gaining part-time employment who receive carer payment (for those with a severe or profound impairment) multiplied by number of carers finding part-time work multiplied by the carer payment. No offsets from other payments are included in the analysis for those not in receipt of carer payment (the same approach taken for carers finding full-time employment).

No reduction in expenditure on income support for carers who increase hours is included in the analysis. Their beneficiary status prior to increasing hours is not known and it is not possible to assess whether these additional hours will impact on means testing arrangements for income support. This again may lead to a measure of conservatism in the estimates. The full results from the taxation module of the research are presented in Table 13.

27

Table 13: Increased taxation/reduced income support for PWD eligible for the NDIS and carers

2015 Module 1 Module 2Carers entering

employment

Carers increasing hours

Forms of increased

labour force participation

New jobs for

PWD

New income tax from these jobs $M

Benefit savings from these jobs $M

New jobs for

PWD

New income

tax from these jobs $M

Benefit savings from these jobs $M

New income tax from these jobs $M

Benefit

savings

from these jobs $M

New taxation revenue

$M

Unemployed seeking full-time work

9146 102 123 3602 40 48

89 73 741

Unemployed seeking part-

time work7992 18 45 3297 7 18

Not in the labour force gaining full-time work

19247 215 389 13815 154 279

Not in the labour force gaining part-

time work

15972 36 84 12592 28 67

Total 370 640 230 412Tax/benefit

savings Module 1 with carer effect $M

1913Tax/benefit savings Module 2 with carer effect $M

1544

The economy-wide benefits of employment growth from PWD and carers as a result of the NDIS

Growth to the Australian economy from employment gains of PWD and their carers as a result of full implementation of the NDIS involves more than the direct impact of these gains in terms of increases in output. There are also flow-on effects as increased income from this employment flows through the economy. These are called multiplier effects by macro-economists. As outlined above, the method chosen to model the economy-wide effects of the NDIS is the application of the econometric modelling tool called REMPLAN which is available to registered users. It has been developed by Compelling Economics from most recent Input/Output tables from the ABS National Accounts updated using census data. Compelling Economics’ description of the model is included in Box 13. REMPLAN essentially represents a snapshot of the matrix of interactions

28

between economic sectors embedded in the National Accounts in 2009/10. These are a complex derivative set of parameters which capture the multiplier effects between sectors to show the flow-on effects of any shock to the system from employment, wage or output growth. . Suggest breaking up into two sentences. These interrelationships are applied to current data from a variety of ABS sources (especially the most recent Census data) to produce a modelling tool that provides current year estimates of economic changes. In this case, it shows changes to employment growth..

REMPLAN naturally faces the constraints of any Input/Output model. The key assumptions are noted in Box 3 and a detailed discussion of the use of these models is included in ABS: Australian National Accounts: Concepts, Sources and Methods 2013.

Box 3: REMPLANREMPLAN™ has been designed to be a user friendly regional economic analysis package with training and support provided by Compelling Economics. REMPLAN clients have access to a dynamic economic modelling capability and detailed regional economic data for up to 111 different industry sectors.

Regions are defined by one or more local government areas. For any actual or hypothetical economic change in a region, REMPLAN users can assess the direct and flow-on implications across industry sectors in terms of employment, wages and salaries, output and Gross Regional Product.

Source: Economic Modelling and Planning System, Training Guide p.1.

The application of the model to the sector of disability employment and their carers is not undertaken to provide a definitive forecast of the final long-run economic impact of the NDIS. The use of REMPLAN in this analysis is to indicate to policy makers that growth in disability employment and carer employment as a result of the NDIS will not just have benefits by increasing labour force participation, but will have additional benefits in driving economic growth by increasing employment across a range of sectors.

A preliminary question is how to account for the issue of part-time work in modelling employment increases. REMPLAN assumes that people will enter the labour market at industry average hours. Consequently, employment growth for PWD and carers has been modelled on the basis of full-time equivalents of full-time and part-time employment as outlined above. Extra hours worked by carers have also been converted to full-time equivalents.

Box 4: Modelling Assumptions

REMPLAN incorporates an input–output methodology and the underlying assumptions of this approach need to be kept clearly in mind. The assumptions are listed below:

29

1. Fixed production coefficients. That is to say that if we wanted to double output of a particular industry sector, we would have to double all of its inputs with no evidence of scale economies. This assumption implies constant returns to scale.

2. Regional performance matches national and state average performance. While this can vary between industries, these differences are usually apparent in other aspects of the economy.

3. Input proportions will remain the same and there will be no change in technology. As long as the model is kept up-to-date, this latter concern should not pose a threat to its effectiveness, except as a tool for long-term forecasting.

4. Homogeneity among industries. It is assumed that each industry sector produces a fixed set of products that are not produced by any other sector. It is, however, possible to have some overlap, e.g. liquor sold in bottle shops (the Retail sector) and in cafes (the Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants sector).

5. No supply constraints. It is assumed that the intermediate and household sectors are able to service any increases in final demand. This assumption could weaken the predictive capacity of the model in those cases where increases in overall demand could bring about input shortages and raise their prices in the short term. However, in most day-to-day cases, increased input demand should not present a problem.

Source: Economic Modelling and Planning System, Training Guide – REMPLAN, p.24.

Table 14: Disability employment dispersion in SDAC12

Industry of employment in (main) job PWD aged 15-64 in households

Rebased to form a total

100%

Relative Standard

errorsAgriculture, Forestry and Fishing 3.5% 3.5% 11.66%Mining 1.1% 1.1% 21.62%Manufacturing 8.1% 8.2% 6.02%Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services 1.3% 1.3% 18.42%Construction 8.2% 8.3% 6.00%Wholesale Trade 3.4% 3.4% 10.21%Retail Trade 10.1% 10.1% 5.82%Accommodation and Food Services 5.5% 5.5% 7.24%Transport, Postal and Warehousing 5.1% 5.1% 8.50%Information Media and Telecommunications 1.7% 1.7% 15.04%Financial and Insurance Services 2.4% 2.4% 12.54%Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services 1.5% 1.5% 15.82%Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 6.3% 6.3% 6.62%Administrative and Support Services 4.6% 4.6% 8.37%Public Administration and Safety 7.6% 7.6% 6.55%Education and Training 7.2% 7.2% 6.19%Health Care and Social Assistance 15.9% 16.0% 4.56%Arts and Recreation Services 2.0% 2.0% 14.91%Other Services 4.1% 4.1% 8.16%Total 100.0%

30

The approach to REMPLAN undertaken here is to assume that the new jobs estimated to be created by the NDIS for PWD are distributed across sectors according to the employment dispersion evident for people with disability in SDAC12. This dispersion is shown in Table 14. In the case of carers full-time equivalent positions are allocated according to the standard REMPLAN distribution reflection employment conditions in January 2014 and represented in Chart 4.

11.9%

10.8%

9.2%

8.4%

8.2%7.4%

7.0%

6.6%

4.9%

4.1%

3.9%

3.8%

3.3%

1.8%

1.8% 1.6% 1.5% 1.2%

Chart 4: Standard employment dispersion in RE-MPLAN (applied to carers) January 2014 Health care and social assis-

tance

Retail trade

Manufacturing

Construction

Education and training

Professional, scientific and technical services

Public administration and safety

Accommodation and food services

Transport, postal and warehousing

Wholesale trade

Other services

Financial and insurance services

Administrative and support services

Mining

Information media and telecommunications

Rental, hiring and real estate services

Arts and recreation services

Electricity, gas, water and waste services

31

Data for Chart 4Health care and social assistance 11.9%Retail trade 10.8%Manufacturing 9.2%Construction 8.4%Education and training 8.2%Professional, scientific and technical services 7.4%Public administration and safety 7.0%Accommodation and food services 6.6%Transport, postal and warehousing 4.9%Wholesale trade 4.1%Other services 3.9%Financial and insurance services 3.8%Administrative and support services 3.3%Mining 1.8%Information media and telecommunications 1.8%Rental, hiring and real estate services 1.6%Arts and recreation services 1.5%Electricity, gas, water and waste services 1.2%

The gains to the economy are presented in 3 ways: the impact of value added (which is the GDP effect), the impact on employment and the impact on salaries. The first of these is of greatest importance.

In addition to the direct effect of the change in employment in the sector, REMPLAN models the consumption and industrial multiplier effects of a policy change. The industrial effect is a Type 1 multiplier where the output of the sectors facing change leads to flow effects on the output of other sectors. The consumption effect is a Type 2 multiplier which includes the impact of the additional consumption from the change. The consumption effect in REMPLAN is necessarily overstated. The model assumes that the new employees appear from nowhere. However, some prior consumption of these persons on income support payments is embedded in the complex system of Input Output tables. To account for the overstating of the consumption effect the consumption multiplier effect should be scaled back by at least a third: reflecting their prior consumption on income support (outside the labour force or unemployed) as a proportion of the average wage. For conservatism, a scale back of 50% has been applied in all cases. There is also an argument that the industrial effect in REMPLAN could be overstated. When Input Output analysis is adopted at the level of an economy with high levels of industry aggregation, the stability of the input coefficients could be questioned and the homogeneity assumption also highly tested. It is difficult to provide for this possibility when modelling a multi-sector shock to employment as undertaken here. Additional simulations could be undertaken with a dampened industrial effect as an option for further conservatism. At this stage in the analysis, the issue is noted as a caveat without a direct reduction in the industrial multiplier being applied.

Six simulations have been modelled. These are:1. Disability employment gains Module 1 alone;

32

2. Disability employment gains Module 2 alone;3. The impact of new carer employment alone;4. Simulation 3 and the impact of additional hours of carers worked;5. The cumulative impact of simulations 1 and 4; and6. The cumulative impact of 2 and 4.

The GDP outcomes are presented in Table 15 below and the detailed output for all simulations is presented in Tables 17-35 in Appendix 2(which are derived prior to the application of the dampener on the consumption multiplier).

Table 15: Results of the modelling

Results of simulations for 2018/19 populations in $201512

Simulation number Simulation description GDP effect $Jan 2014 GDP effect $2015/16

1 Disability employment growth module 1`

$10,515.9 $10,726.71

2 Disability employment growth module 2

$7,309.01 $7,455.51

3 Carers entering the labour force

$2,485.75 $2,535.58

4 Simulation 3 including increased hours of work from carers

currently employed

$10,511.88 $10,722.57

5 Simulations 1 and 4 combined

$22,174.68 $22,619.14

6 Simulations 2 and 4 combined

$17,818.47 $18,175.62

Phasing-in of the economic benefits

These GDP gains are based on the long-run full implementation of the NDIS. However, as the scheme transitions towards full implementation some of these GDP will start to be enjoyed. This research paper has calculated this phase-in of the economic benefits of the scheme based on the estimated level of clients operating in the launch sites and stated transition arrangements for jurisdictions. In the case of jurisdictions where there is no stated transition path to full NDIS implementation no phase-in of the economic benefits is calculated (Queensland, NT, Western Australia). In cases where there is partial NDIS implementation in a jurisdiction (say due to the

12 The methodology adopted to produce the estimates in Table 1 is explained later in the report.33

roll out of a launch site) the additional client caseload for full implementation is phased-in evenly over each of the years between the partial implementation target date and the full implementation date. This leads to the following transition table for the NDIS.

34

Table 16: NDIS Implementation TableJurisdiction 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20

ACT 2500 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000

NSW 5000 10000 56667 103333 150000 150000

SA 5000 5000 14333 23667 33000 33000

Tasmania 950 950 3463 5975 8488 11000

Victoria 5000 5000 28750 52500 76250 100000

Queensland 97000

Northern Territory 7000

WA 57000

460000

Employment gains as a proportion of total employment gains with a 12 month lag.

Jurisdiction 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

2018/19 2019/20 2020/21

ACT 0.54% 1.09% 1.09% 1.09% 1.09% 1.09%

NSW 1.09% 2.17% 12.32% 22.46% 32.61% 32.61%

SA 1.09% 1.09% 3.12% 5.14% 7.17% 7.17%

Tasmania 0.21% 0.21% 0.75% 1.30% 1.85% 2.39%

Victoria 1.09% 1.09% 6.25% 11.41% 16.58% 21.74%

Queensland 21.09%

Northern Territory 1.52%

WA 12.39%

Total 4.01% 5.64% 23.52% 41.41% 59.29% 100.00%

The process of measuring the phasing-in of the economic benefits of the NDIS is undertaken in the following manner. The client case load at any point in time in a jurisdiction is taken as a proportion of the total NDIS fully phased-in caseload across all jurisdictions. The economic benefits of the NDIS are assumed to be realised in a jurisdiction in proportion to the take up of a jurisdiction’s forecast case load. However, a 12 month lag is applied to allow the scheme to impact on labour market outcomes. So if the caseload in 2015/16 in Tasmania was 0.21% of the fully phased-in caseload across jurisdictions then 0.21% of the total national

35

employment/economic gains in the fully phased-in model are assumed to occur in Tasmania in 2016/17. This assumption of a linear scaling of the phasing-in of the economic benefits is required for simplicity.13 This leads to the transition path for the phasing-in of the economic benefits of the NDIS nationally in Chart 1 which is duplicated below.

13 In reality, the phasing-in of the economic benefits is more likely to take the form of an increasing parabolic function as the multiplier effects compound over time.

36

References

Australian Government, Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013 Australian National Accounts: Concepts Sources and Methods, Commonwealth of Australia, CanberraAustralian Government, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 6302.0 - Average Weekly Earnings, Australia, May 201 Commonwealth of Australia, CanberraAustralian Government, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 6306.0 - Employee Earnings and Hours, Australia, May 2012 Commonwealth of Australia, CanberraAustralian Government, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census 2011, Tablebuilder data accessed at http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/tablebuilder?opendocument&navpos=240, Commonwealth of Australia, CanberraAustralian Government, Australian Bureau of Statistics Survey of Ageing, Disability and Carers 2012, Data cubes, Tablebuilder and CURF, Commonwealth of Australia, CanberraCIS 2012, The New Leviathan: A National Disability Insurance Scheme.Commonwealth Government, Budget Papers , Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.NDIA website, various sources.FAHCSIA, various years, Annual Report, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, Productivity Commission 2011, Report into Disability Care and Suppo rt, Commonwealth Government, Canberra.Compelling Economics, REMPLAN Training Guide, available to registered users of REMPLAN.Madden 1014 R., National Disability Insurance Scheme: Impact on the Commonwealth Budget to 2019-20, Policy Bulletin No 3, 2014, Centre for Disability Research and Policy, University of Sydney.

37

Appendix 1: Methodology for profiling the NDIS eligible population from SDAC12

The NDIS has now been legislated in the ‘National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013’ and a set of eligibility ‘Rules’ have been published by government – ‘National Disability Insurance Scheme (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2013 ’ .

This legislation and these Rules outline a number of key criteria for funded support of people with disability under the NDIS. The legislation requires Australian residence (s23). Age criteria are specified (s22 – with some variances in State/Territory jurisdictions), but generally restrict eligibility criteria to those under the age of 65. The legislation also requires that, in order to be eligible as a participant in the NDIS, the person with disability must have a permanent disability which is likely to continue over their lifetime (even if episodic in nature s24(1)(b) ) or to be in an ‘early intervention’ category. The legislation specifies a set of impairment tests which are to apply to assess eligibility for participation in the NDIS (s24(1)). These tests under the legislation require that: a. the person has a disability that is attributable to one or more intellectual, cognitive,

neurological, sensory or physical impairments or to one or more impairments attributable to a psychiatric condition;

b. the impairment or impairments are, or are likely to be, permanent; c. and the impairment or impairments result in substantially reduced functional capacity to

undertake, or psychosocial functioning in undertaking, one or more of the following activities:

i. communication;ii. social interaction;iii. learning;iv. mobility;v. self-care; vi. self-management, and

d. the impairment or impairments affect the person’s capacity for social and economic participation; and

e. the person is likely to require support under the NDIS for the person’s lifetime.

The Scheme Rules give some clarify to these tests. Rules 5.8 state that:

“An impairment results in substantially reduced functional capacity of a person to undertake one or more of the relevant activities – communication, social interaction, learning, mobility, self-care, self-management – if its result is that:

a. the person is unable to participate effectively or completely in the activity, or to perform tasks or actions required to undertake or participate effectively or completely in the activity,

38

without assistive technology, equipment (other than commonly used items such as glasses) or home modifications; or

b. The person usually requires assistance (including physical assistance, guidance, supervision or prompting) from other people to participate in the activity or to perform tasks or actions required to undertake or participate in the activity; or

c. The person is unable to participate in the activity or to perform tasks or actions required to undertake or participate in the activity, even with assistive technology, equipment, home modifications or assistance from another person.”14

The Operational Guidelines for Access to the NDIS assist in the interpretation of the legislation and the Rules. In particular, the Operational Guidelines for Access identify two lists of conditions which will be considered in accessing eligibility for the NDIS. These are described as list A and List B.15 These lists have been developed to streamline the access process for people with a condition on one of these lists. The lists are not exhaustive and in no way suggest that a person with a condition not on a list is excluded from the NDIS. List A refers to ‘Conditions which are likely to meet the disability requirements in s.24 of the NDIS Act’. For these conditions the entry to the NDIS is granted without meeting an impairment test. For conditions in List B ‘Conditions for which permanent impairment/functional capacity are variable and further assessment of functional capacity generally is required’ eligibility requires an impairment test. The Operational Guidelines on Access identify a third list: ‘List C’. This refers to a condition:

Where a person has already been considered eligible for certain state or territory schemes … the delegate would generally be satisfied that the person meets the Disability Requirement. This is because some State and Territory disability support arrangements have been assessed as having eligibility requirements equivalent to the NDIS disability requirements and therefore the relevant state or territory has already assessed that the person has a disability that is attributable to a permanent impairment that results in substantially reduced functional capacity.

This list is also not exhaustive.

The legislation, the NDIS Rules and the Operational Guidelines for Access combine to produce a set of decision tests for eligibility to be a participant in the NDIS which, for the purposes of this analysis, can be specified as:

1. The person must be a resident (currently in specified launch site areas) generally aged under 65;

2. Have a permanent disability which will require lifetime support under the Scheme or be in an early intervention category;

3. Must have a disability which results in an impairment which substantially reduces functional capacity in 6 specified areas identified above or be in List A. Identification

14 See r. 5.8 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2013.

15 http://www.ndis.gov.au/document/319.39

in List B of the Operational Rules on Access meets the disability test but the client will also need to meet the impairment test to be eligible for funded support under the NDIS. List C is ignored as this relates to transitional arrangements which are assumed to be captured by SDAC 2012 when the NDIS is fully implemented. Lists A and B are reproduced at the end in this paper in Appendices 3 and 4 respectively.

Modelling the NDIS Using SDAC

The way in which the data in the SDAC 2012 CURF has been applied to the eligibility requirements is outlined below. While the principal emphasis is placed on alignment with the requirements of the legislation, specific methods are also outlined in relation to some of the Rule and Operational Guidelines on Access.

Age tests under s22 of the Act

This model focuses on employment gains and is, therefore, restricted to eligible people with disability (PWD) between the ages of 15 and 64 (inclusive). These persons meet the tests of s22 of the Act. It is possible to cross tabulate disability conditions in SDAC against the category of persons aged 15-64 living in households: an enumerated population with the SDAC12 CURF.

Residency requirements under the Act

The modelling assumes that SDAC respondents who would otherwise meet eligibility criteria on the basis of their disability and attributable impairment meet national residency and citizenship tests under s23 of the Act. In the transition to full implementation of the NDIS eligibility for support in the launch sites will be a function of place of residence of the person with disability within a specific region and State/Territory jurisdiction. The model is a long-term model based on full implementation of the NDIS. Consequently, the model does not base measurement of the NDIS participating cohort on access to services provided in launch sites, but on full implementation of the NDIS in 2018. Residency and locality tests are not incorporated into the model. For the purposes of this analysis ‘List C’ of the Operational Guidelines on Access is ignored as the model is based on the full national implementation of the NDIS in 2018.

Eligibility under s24(1)(a) – disability test

List A of the Operation Guidelines of Access identifies a number of conditions which grant access to the NDIS without meeting an impairment test. List includes generic conditions of permanent disability (Intellectual disability diagnosed and assessed as moderate, severe or profound, Autism diagnosed by a specialist assessed at Level 2 or 3 using the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), or Cerebral palsy diagnosed and assessed as severe. Many PWD who meet these more generic disability types identified in list A can be

40

measured in SDAC. List A also includes more specific condition types specified that are not able to be identified under the SDAC survey method. It is noted that List A has been developed since the passing of the legislation and is now a more expansive criterion list for automatic edibility to the NDIS (subject to tests of residency and age). This is also the case with List B of the Operation Guidelines of Access which meet eligibility under s23(1)(a) but will also need to face an impairment test. After consideration of Lists A and B, in determination of the legibility for access to funded support under the NDIS based on the disability of the potential recipient the best analytical guide remains the research provided in PC 2011. PC 2011 provided a list in Attachment H of the report which was used by the PC to estimate the NDIS population using earlier versions of SDAC (SDAC 2003 and 2009). For the purposes of this analysis it is judged that , after consideration of conditions noted in Lists A and B of the Operation Guidelines on Access, this list in Attachment H of PC 2011 is the best disability list to apply to disability test of s23(1)(a) of the Act. As outlined below Attachment H identifies participants with a core activity limitation with a daily need for assistance and those who have a self-management impairment or are in an early intervention category. The modelling assumes that PWD identified in SDAC 2012 will meet if they have a condition noted in. SDAC respondents in the 2012 CURF with a disability specified in List A or B or the Operation Guidelines on Access or specified in Attachment H of PC 2011 satisfy the disability test for eligibility under NDIS s23(1)(a). Those not listed in Attachment H of PC 2011 or Lists A or B of the Operational Guidelines on Access are excluded.

Eligibility under s24(1)(b) –permanent disability

Participants who satisfy eligibility under s23(1)(a) are assumed to satisfy eligibility under s23(1)(b). It is estimated that extremely few participants with a condition in Attachment H of PC 2011 or Lists A and B of the Operational Guidelines will fail to meet the requirements of a permanent disability under s23(1)(b) of the Act.

Eligibility under s24(1)(c) – impairments with a substantially reduced functional capacity

This is the most critical section of the Act for determination of eligibility for access to the NDIS. For persons with a significant disability who meet residency and age requirements it will be the operation of this section of the Act and the associated Rules of the Scheme that will become the primary determinant of eligibility under the NDIS. It is in relation to these specific criteria that the SDAC 2012 CURF displays significant explanatory power in estimating the potentially eligible NDIS population. This is because the SDAC 2012 CURF asks a number of detailed questions in relation to limitations faced by a person with disability that can be modelled to estimate the number of persons with levels of impairment that would potentially meet the requirements of this section of the legislation.

In seeking to the enumerate the NDIS eligible cohort in SDAC the modelling seeks to apply an impairment test for those PWD not otherwise eligible under List A of the operational guidelines on

41

Access but included in List B of the guidelines or meeting the test for disability in Appendix H of PC 2011. This is undertaken by seeking to apply the six criteria listed in s23(1)(c):

“.. the impairment or impairments result in substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake, or psychosocial functioning in undertaking, one or more of the following activities:

i. communication;ii. social interaction;iii. learning;iv. mobility;v. self-care; andvi. Self-management”.

Criteria (i), (iv) and (v) are analysed first. In identifying this cohort the research in PC 2011 remains an important source of data. It lists conditions where PWD have a core activity limitations aligned with criteria (i), (iv) and (v) listed above. The report also these conditions were the frequency of assistance required is daily. This is also aligned with Rule 5.8(b) which states that for NDIS eligibility ‘the person usually requires assistance’. The test of a daily need for assistance satisfies this ‘usually required’ test. In this way the conditions requiring a daily need for assistance in areas with a core activity limitation are effective tests for determining NDIS eligibility. The modelling applies these PC 2011 tests in Appendix H to the data set in SDAC 2012 to determine the NDIS participation cohort under criteria (i), (iv) and (v). Furthermore, SDAC12 also includes a frequency test of the need for assistance and assistance received for those with core activity limitations. This is broken down into those in need or in receipt of assistance with core activities from informal or organised services with core activities on a daily basis.16 If a person has a condition listed in Appendix H of PC 2011 which is expected to require a daily need for assistance this cohort is included in the NDIS participating cohort. If the condition is listed in Appendix H but not noted as requiring daily assistance in Appendix H but does indicate a frequency of need of assistance on a daily basis they are included in the NDIS participating cohort. If the survey respondent in SDAC has a condition specified in List B of the Operational Guidelines on Access of PC 2011 meeting the disability test for the NDIS and they meet the need for formal or informal assistance (or receive this assistance) with core activities with a frequency of daily assistance then they are also included in the NDIS participating cohort in SDAC12.

Assessment of criterion (iii) – learning impairment - is analysed next. If not otherwise eligible under the above tests under this section, a person is assumed to meet this criterion if they have a daily need for assistance with reading and writing identified in frequency tests for need of assistance for this activity in SDAC and if they also have a disability listed in Attachment H of PC 2011 or List B of the Operational Guidelines on Access.

16 These tests are: Frequency of assistance received from organised services with core activities FRASOSCA; Frequency of informal assistance received with core activities FRASINFC; Frequency of need for assistance with core activities from organised services FNASCOS; Frequency of need for more assistance with core activities from organised services FNASMCO; Frequency of need for informal assistance with core activities FNACIFC; Frequency of need for more informal assistance with core activities FNAMCIFC.

42

Assessment of criterion (vi) – self- management impairment- is undertaken in the same manner as criterion (ii) above. A self-management impairment is measured in the following manner. If the SDAC respondent has a disability listed in Attachment H for self- they are included in the participating NDIS cohort if they meet a frequency test for the need for or receipt of daily assistance.17 In this manner, the modelling includes all participants with learning or intellectual disability in the participating NDIS population if they have an impairment noted in Appendix H of PC2011 unless they are already included by being on List A. Criterion (ii) under the Act – a substantial reduction in functional capacity in social interaction - is more problematical. SDAC does provide a range of questions for persons with disability in relation to social interaction. Such questions might be able to be employed to determine if PWD meet the disability test. However, it is very difficult here to assess whether ‘the substantially reduced functional capacity’ test, which is also required under s23(1)(c) is met. SDCA does not apply the frequency test for the need for assistance in this category in the same way it does with other impairments listed above. The question then is what threshold of frequency for assistance in social participation is needed to assess a substantial reduction in functional capacity in this area? In place of the standard frequency test for need of assistance for PWD with this impairment, SDAC asks respondents questions in relation to the frequency of the need for assistance over a longer period –months or a year. These tests are deemed to be too loose to assess eligibility for support under the NDIS against this disability type. SDAC does not provide a sound statistical basis for assessing impairment under this criterion as there is no objective basis for assessing eligibility under this criterion in SDAC. Consequently, an explicit option for conservatism in the modelling has been adopted and this assessment for eligibility under this criterion has been excluded. Potential NDIS participants who may meet this criterion and not meet other criteria are not included in the participating NDIS cohort, although it is of course possible that such PWD will be captured under other criteria.

Criteria required under s23(1)(d) and (e) relate to an impairment which affects social and economic participation (d) and require lifetime support under the NDIS(e). SDAC does not provide scope to assess eligibility under these criteria. Those deemed eligible under other criteria are assumed to meet this test. It is judged that exclusion of this criterion from the modelling will not reduce the estimated participating cohort in a substantive way and exclusion of this test for eligibility is adopted to pursue the stated objective of conservatism in the modelling exercise.A discussion of Rule 5.8(c) is warranted. This rule prescribes that a person will meet the impairment tests if they require assistive technology, specialised equipment or home modifications to participate effectively in activities listed in s23(1)(c). While SDAC does provide a suite of questions on aids, equipment and home modifications, the questions asked relate to the use of such aids, equipment or home modifications. The questions do not ask if the use of these items is

17 The tests mimic those applied for core activity limitations: Frequency of assistance received from organised services with cognitive or emotional tasks RASFRFEB; Frequency of informal assistance received with cognitive or emotional tasks RASFRIEM; Frequency of need for assistance with cognitive or emotional tasks from organised services FRAOCOGC; Frequency of need for more assistance with cognitive or emotional tasks from organised services FMAOCOGC; Frequency of need for informal assistance with cognitive or emotional tasks FRAICOGC; Frequency of need for more informal assistance with cognitive or emotional tasks FMAICOGC.

43

required to assist in effective participation in criteria under s23(1)(c) of the Act. Use of these items is not identical to the need for use of these items and inclusion of use of these items as a ground for eligibility for the Scheme widens the eligibility criteria very widely and unreliably. This is a clear deficiency in SDAC 2012which should be corrected in future surveys. Consequently, for the sake of the integrity of the methodology, eligibility specified under Rule 5.8(a) is excluded from the participating NDIS cohort further reflecting a conservative methodology.

Eligibility under s25 – the early intervention category

The early intervention cohort eligible under s25 is readily incorporated into the model. The PC report in Attachment H of PC 2011 lists the types of disability which are likely to be responsive to early intervention measures. If an SDAC respondent has one of these conditions, then this respondent adds to the sample of person measured as participating in the NDIS. No frequency test for the need for daily assistance is applied. A substantial component of these participants have already been included in the NDIS participating cohort measured in SDAC as being part of List A of Operational Guidelines on Access or in the assessment undertaken in relation to eligibility under s23(1)(c).

44

Appendix 2: Detailed Results for Simulations 1-6

This appendix includes the simulation results by sector in 2015 dollars terms when the NDIS is implemented. The tables show the total effect, including multiplier effects, estimated by the REMPLAN model, for ‘value-added’ (the GDP equivalent), ‘employment’ and ‘wages and salaries’. In these tables the consumption effect of the model is included in totality, prior to the application of a 50% dampening effect discussed above.

Table 17: Simulation 1 Impact on Value-AddedValue-Added Direct Change

JobsDirect Effect ($M)

Industrial Effect ($M)

Consumption Effect ($M)

Total ($M)

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing

1,285 $124.47 $109.76 $82.12 $316.35

Mining 398 $322.97 $257.22 $67.42 $647.61Manufacturing 2,988 $452.04 $406.60 $308.17 $1,166.81Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services

461 $149.34 $158.27 $113.20 $420.81

Construction 3,013 $385.96 $244.66 $64.79 $695.41Wholesale Trade 1,253 $210.34 $193.90 $210.52 $614.76Retail Trade 3,690 $226.48 $82.55 $362.17 $671.20Accommodation & Food Services

2,021 $110.63 $47.13 $186.97 $344.73

Transport, Postal & Warehousing

1,875 $256.76 $226.82 $171.69 $655.28

Information Media & Telecommunications

614 $151.35 $178.28 $163.26 $492.88

Financial & Insurance Services

890 $345.01 $554.03 $667.79 $1,566.83

Rental, Hiring & Real Estate Services

538 $529.45 $160.79 $976.17 $1,666.41

Professional, Scientific & Technical Services

2,304 $283.61 $495.47 $186.41 $965.49

Administrative & Support Services

1,679 $181.94 $204.18 $91.94 $478.07

Public Administration & Safety

2,789 $312.16 $65.88 $29.73 $407.77

Education & Training 2,639 $228.50 $22.51 $184.66 $435.67Health Care & Social Assistance

5,830 $443.75 $8.88 $232.20 $684.82

Arts & Recreation Services

723 $52.85 $16.13 $55.01 $123.99

Other Services 1,512 $102.43 $71.07 $129.31 $302.81TOTAL 36,502 $4,870.05 $3,504.13 $4,283.52 $12,657.69

45

Table 18 Simulation 1: Impact on Wages and Salaries

Wages and Salaries

Direct Change Jobs

Direct Effect ($M)

Industrial Effect ($M)

Consumption Effect ($M)

Total ($M)

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 1,285 $29.80 $28.68 $19.05 $77.53Mining 398 $59.37 $53.50 $11.06 $123.93Manufacturing 2,988 $246.44 $222.60 $163.37 $632.41Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services 461 $52.44 $55.52 $38.07 $146.03Construction 3,013 $192.53 $125.28 $33.11 $350.91Wholesale Trade 1,253 $129.89 $119.74 $130.00 $379.63Retail Trade 3,690 $149.01 $54.31 $238.28 $441.59Accommodation & Food Services 2,021 $66.89 $28.74 $115.40 $211.03Transport, Postal & Warehousing 1,875 $130.52 $114.41 $89.70 $334.63Information Media & Telecommunications 614 $50.14 $59.26 $53.05 $162.45Financial & Insurance Services 890 $168.23 $275.03 $307.29 $750.54Rental, Hiring & Real Estate Services 538 $42.67 $72.84 $31.90 $147.42Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 2,304 $177.44 $309.53 $116.48 $603.45Administrative & Support Services 1,679 $149.18 $167.04 $74.44 $390.66Public Administration & Safety 2,789 $245.66 $54.35 $24.52 $324.52Education & Training 2,639 $198.01 $18.90 $156.71 $373.62Health Care & Social Assistance 5,830 $366.03 $7.04 $190.79 $563.86Arts & Recreation Services 723 $30.09 $9.61 $31.41 $71.10Other Services 1,512 $68.61 $43.75 $88.65 $201.01

TOTAL 36,502 $2,552.94 $1,820.13 $1,913.26$6,286.3

2

46

47

Table 19: Simulation 1 : Impact on Employment

Employment

Direct Change Jobs

Direct Effect (Jobs)

Industrial Effect (Jobs)

Consumption Effect (Jobs) Total (Jobs)

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 1,285 1,285 1,094 807 3,186Mining 398 398 372 64 835Manufacturing 2,988 2,988 2,650 2,351 7,990Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services 461 461 486 336 1,283Construction 3,013 3,013 2,224 589 5,826Wholesale Trade 1,253 1,253 1,155 1,254 3,662Retail Trade 3,690 3,690 1,345 5,901 10,936Accommodation & Food Services 2,021 2,021 875 3,553 6,450Transport, Postal & Warehousing 1,875 1,875 1,719 1,309 4,903Information Media & Telecommunications 614 614 714 646 1,974Financial & Insurance Services 890 890 1,373 1,719 3,982Rental, Hiring & Real Estate Services 538 538 857 452 1,847Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 2,304 2,304 4,087 1,534 7,925Administrative & Support Services 1,679 1,679 1,911 917 4,506Public Administration & Safety 2,789 2,789 653 297 3,739Education & Training 2,639 2,639 240 2,241 5,119Health Care & Social Assistance 5,830 5,830 114 3,043 8,987Arts & Recreation Services 723 723 279 688 1,690Other Services 1,512 1,512 1,094 1,867 4,473TOTAL 36,502 36,502 23,242 29,568 89,312

48

Table 20– Simulation 2 - Impact on Value-Added

Value-Added

Direct Change Jobs

Direct Effect ($M)

Industrial Effect ($M)

Consumption Effect ($M)

Total ($M)

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 893 $86.50 $76.29 $57.07 $219.86Mining 277 $224.78 $178.80 $46.85 $450.44Manufacturing 2,077 $314.22 $282.60 $214.18 $811.00Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services 320 $103.67 $109.95 $78.68 $292.29Construction 2,094 $268.24 $170.04 $45.03 $483.31Wholesale Trade 871 $146.21 $134.76 $146.31 $427.29Retail Trade 2,564 $157.37 $57.37 $251.71 $466.45Accommodation & Food Services 1,405 $76.91 $32.76 $129.95 $239.61Transport, Postal & Warehousing 1,303 $178.43 $157.65 $119.33 $455.41Information Media & Telecommunications 427 $105.25 $123.91 $113.47 $342.63Financial & Insurance Services 619 $239.96 $385.10 $464.12 $1,089.18Rental, Hiring & Real Estate Services 374 $368.06 $111.76 $678.44 $1,158.26Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 1,601 $197.07 $344.36 $129.55 $670.99Administrative & Support Services 1,167 $126.46 $141.91 $63.90 $332.27Public Administration & Safety 1,938 $216.91 $45.79 $20.66 $283.36Education & Training 1,834 $158.80 $15.65 $128.34 $302.78Health Care & Social Assistance 4,051 $308.34 $6.17 $161.38 $475.89Arts & Recreation Services 502 $36.70 $11.21 $38.23 $86.14Other Services 1,050 $71.14 $49.40 $89.87 $210.40TOTAL 25,367 $3,385.01 $2,435.46 $2,977.08 $8,797.55

49

Table 21- Simulation 2 - Impact on Wages and Salaries

Wages and Salaries

Direct Change Jobs

Direct Effect ($M)

Industrial Effect ($M)

Consumption Effect ($M) Total ($M)

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 893 $20.71 $19.94 $13.24 $53.88Mining 277 $41.32 $37.19 $7.68 $86.20Manufacturing 2,077 $171.31 $154.72 $113.54 $439.56Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services 320 $36.40 $38.57 $26.46 $101.43Construction 2,094 $133.81 $87.07 $23.01 $243.88Wholesale Trade 871 $90.29 $83.22 $90.35 $263.86Retail Trade 2,564 $103.54 $37.75 $165.60 $306.89Accommodation & Food Services 1,405 $46.50 $19.98 $80.21 $146.68Transport, Postal & Warehousing 1,303 $90.70 $79.52 $62.34 $232.57Information Media & Telecommunications 427 $34.87 $41.19 $36.87 $112.93Financial & Insurance Services 619 $117.01 $191.17 $213.57 $521.74Rental, Hiring & Real Estate Services 374 $29.67 $50.63 $22.17 $102.47Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 1,601 $123.30 $215.13 $80.96 $419.38Administrative & Support Services 1,167 $103.69 $116.10 $51.74 $271.52Public Administration & Safety 1,938 $170.70 $37.77 $17.04 $225.51Education & Training 1,834 $137.61 $13.14 $108.91 $259.66Health Care & Social Assistance 4,051 $254.34 $4.89 $132.60 $391.83Arts & Recreation Services 502 $20.89 $6.68 $21.83 $49.40Other Services 1,050 $47.65 $30.40 $61.62 $139.67TOTAL 25,367 $1,774.28 $1,265.04 $1,329.73 $4,369.05

50

Table 22 - Simulation 2 - Impact on Employment

Employment

Direct Change Jobs

Direct Effect

Industrial Effect (Jobs)

Consumption Effect (Jobs) Total (Jobs)

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 893 893 760 561 2,214Mining 277 277 259 45 581Manufacturing 2,077 2,077 1,842 1,634 5,553Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services 320 320 338 234 891Construction 2,094 2,094 1,546 409 4,049Wholesale Trade 871 871 803 872 2,545Retail Trade 2,564 2,564 935 4,101 7,600Accommodation & Food Services 1,405 1,405 608 2,470 4,483Transport, Postal & Warehousing 1,303 1,303 1,195 910 3,407Information Media & Telecommunications 427 427 497 449 1,372Financial & Insurance Services 619 619 955 1,195 2,768Rental, Hiring & Real Estate Services 374 374 595 314 1,284Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 1,601 1,601 2,840 1,066 5,507Administrative & Support Services 1,167 1,167 1,328 637 3,132Public Administration & Safety 1,938 1,938 454 206 2,598Education & Training 1,834 1,834 167 1,557 3,558Health Care & Social Assistance 4,051 4,051 79 2,115 6,245Arts & Recreation Services 502 502 194 479 1,174Other Services 1,050 1,050 760 1,298 3,108TOTAL 25,367 25,367 16,154 20,549 62,070

51

Table 23-Simulation 3: Impact on Value-added

Value-AddedDirect Change Jobs

Direct Effect ($M)

Industrial Effect ($M)

Consumption Effect ($M) Total ($M)

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 202 $19.57 $24.24 $18.99 $62.79

Mining 145 $117.67 $65.19 $15.59 $198.44Manufacturing 742 $112.25 $95.07 $71.25 $278.58Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services 97 $31.42 $35.74 $26.17 $93.34

Construction 677 $86.72 $56.67 $14.98 $158.37Wholesale Trade 331 $55.56 $44.34 $48.67 $148.58Retail Trade 871 $53.46 $18.67 $83.74 $155.86Accommodation & Food Services 532 $29.12 $10.81 $43.23 $83.16

Transport, Postal & Warehousing 395 $54.09 $52.79 $39.70 $146.58

Information Media & Telecommunications 145 $35.74 $41.31 $37.75 $114.79

Financial & Insurance Services 306 $118.62 $137.50 $154.40 $410.52

Rental, Hiring & Real Estate Services 129 $126.95 $37.07 $225.70 $389.72

Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 597 $73.49 $116.25 $43.10 $232.84

Administrative & Support Services 266 $28.83 $46.87 $21.26 $96.96

Public Administration & Safety 564 $63.13 $14.97 $6.87 $84.97

Education & Training 661 $57.23 $5.18 $42.70 $105.11Health Care & Social Assistance 959 $72.99 $1.92 $53.69 $128.60

Arts & Recreation Services 121 $8.85 $3.49 $12.72 $25.05Other Services 306 $20.73 $16.06 $29.90 $66.69TOTAL 8,046 $1,166.42 $824.14 $990.39 $2,980.95

52

53

Table 24- Simulation 3- Impact on Wages and Salaries

Direct Change Jobs

Direct Change Output ($M)

Direct Effect ($M)

Industrial Effect ($M)

Consumption Effect ($M) Total ($M)

Wages and Salaries 202 $4.69 $6.20 $4.40 $15.29

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 145 $21.63 $13.96 $2.56 $38.15

Mining 742 $61.20 $52.00 $37.77 $150.97Manufacturing 97 $11.03 $12.51 $8.80 $32.35Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services

677 $43.26 $29.02 $7.65 $79.93

Construction 331 $34.31 $27.38 $30.06 $91.75Wholesale Trade 871 $35.17 $12.28 $55.09 $102.55Retail Trade 532 $17.61 $6.59 $26.68 $50.88Accommodation & Food Services 395 $27.50 $26.57 $20.74 $74.81

Transport, Postal & Warehousing 145 $11.84 $13.75 $12.26 $37.85

Information Media & Telecommuni-cations

306 $57.84 $68.51 $71.05 $197.40

Financial & Insurance Services

129 $10.23 $16.80 $7.38 $34.41

Rental, Hiring & Real Estate Services

597 $45.98 $72.63 $26.93 $145.53

Professional, Scientific & Technical Services

266 $23.63 $38.39 $17.21 $79.24

Administrative & Support Services 564 $49.68 $12.35 $5.67 $67.69

Public Administration & Safety

661 $49.60 $4.36 $36.23 $90.18

Education & Training 959 $60.21 $1.52 $44.11 $105.84

Health Care & Social Assistance 121 $5.04 $2.08 $7.26 $14.38

Arts & Recreation Services 306 $13.89 $9.88 $20.50 $44.26

Other Services 8,046 $584.32 $426.77 $442.36 $1,453.45

TOTAL

Table 25 – Simulation 3 - Impact on Employment

EmploymentDirect Change Jobs

Direct Effect (Jobs)

Industrial Effect (Jobs)

Consumption Effect (Jobs)

Total (Jobs)

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 202 202 245 187 633

Mining 145 145 98 15 258Manufacturing 742 742 618 544 1,903Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services

97 97 110 78 285

Construction 677 677 515 136 1,328Wholesale Trade 331 331 264 290 885Retail Trade 871 871 304 1,364 2,539Accommodation & Food Services 532 532 201 822 1,554

Transport, Postal & Warehousing 395 395 398 303 1,096

Information Media & Telecommunications

145 145 166 149 460

Financial & Insurance Services 306 306 341 397 1,044

Rental, Hiring & Real Estate Services

129 129 197 105 431

Professional, Scientific & Technical Services

597 597 959 355 1,910

Administrative & Support Services 266 266 436 212 914

Public Administration & Safety

564 564 148 69 781

Education & Training 661 661 55 518 1,234

Health Care & Social Assistance 959 959 25 704 1,687

Arts & Recreation Services 121 121 60 159 340

Other Services 306 306 248 432 986TOTAL 8,046 8,046 5,388 6,836 20,270

54

Table 26 Simulation 4 - Impact on Value-Added

Value-AddedDirect Change Jobs

Direct Effect ($M)

Industrial Effect ($M)

Consumption Effect ($M) Total ($M)

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 852 $82.56 $102.44 $80.29 $265.29

Mining 614 $497.99 $275.62 $65.92 $839.52Manufacturing 3,137 $474.52 $402.00 $301.32 $1,177.84Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services 409 $132.54 $151.01 $110.68 $394.23

Construction 2,864 $366.85 $239.66 $63.35 $669.86Wholesale Trade 1,398 $234.65 $187.47 $205.84 $627.96Retail Trade 3,682 $225.99 $78.93 $354.11 $659.04Accommodation & Food Services 2,250 $123.17 $45.71 $182.81 $351.69

Transport, Postal & Warehousing 1,671 $228.77 $223.21 $167.88 $619.85

Information Media & Telecommunications 614 $151.27 $174.66 $159.63 $485.56

Financial & Insurance Services 1,296 $502.22 $581.54 $652.94 $1,736.69

Rental, Hiring & Real Estate Services 545 $536.82 $156.77 $954.46 $1,648.05

Professional, Scientific & Technical 2,523 $310.55 $491.58 $182.26 $984.39

Administrative & Support Services 1,125 $121.92 $198.21 $89.90 $410.03

Public Administration & Safety 2,387 $267.11 $63.29 $29.07 $359.47

Education & Training 2,796 $242.06 $21.92 $180.55 $444.54Health Care & Social Assistance 4,057 $308.81 $8.12 $227.03 $543.95

Arts & Recreation Services 511 $37.38 $14.76 $53.78 $105.92

Other Services 1,296 $87.77 $67.93 $126.43 $282.13TOTAL 34,025 $4,932.95 $3,484.81 $4,188.24 $12,606.00

55

Table 27 Simulation 4 – Impact on Employment

EmploymentDirect Change Jobs

Direct Effect (Jobs)

Industrial Effect (Jobs)

Consumption Effect (Jobs)

Total (Jobs)

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 852 852 1,035 789 2,676

Mining 614 614 414 63 1,090Manufacturing 3,137 3,137 2,612 2,299 8,048Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services 409 409 466 329 1,203

Construction 2,864 2,864 2,177 576 5,617Wholesale Trade 1,398 1,398 1,117 1,226 3,741Retail Trade 3,682 3,682 1,286 5,769 10,738Accommodation & Food Services 2,250 2,250 849 3,474 6,574

Transport, Postal & Warehousing 1,671 1,671 1,683 1,280 4,633

Information Media & Telecommunications 614 614 701 631 1,946

Financial & Insurance Services 1,296 1,296 1,442 1,681 4,419

Rental, Hiring & Real Estate Services 545 545 835 442 1,823

Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 2,523 2,523 4,055 1,500 8,077

Administrative & Support Services 1,125 1,125 1,842 896 3,863

Public Administration & Safety 2,387 2,387 628 290 3,305

Education & Training 2,796 2,796 233 2,191 5,219Health Care & Social Assistance 4,057 4,057 104 2,975 7,136

Arts & Recreation Services 511 511 254 673 1,439

Other Services 1,296 1,296 1,049 1,825 4,170TOTAL 34,025 34,025 22,782 28,910 85,717

56

Table 28 Simulation 4 - Impact on Wages and Salaries

Wages and SalariesDirect Change Jobs

Direct Effect ($M)

Industrial Effect ($M)

Consumption Effect ($M) Total ($M)

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 852 $19.77 $26.21 $18.62 $64.60

Mining 614 $91.54 $59.03 $10.81 $161.39Manufacturing 3,137 $258.70 $219.88 $159.74 $638.31Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services

409 $46.54 $52.86 $37.22 $136.63

Construction 2,864 $183.00 $122.71 $32.37 $338.08Wholesale Trade 1,398 $144.90 $115.77 $127.11 $387.78Retail Trade 3,682 $148.69 $51.93 $232.98 $433.59Accommodation & Food Services 2,250 $74.47 $27.88 $112.84 $215.19

Transport, Postal & Warehousing 1,671 $116.29 $112.36 $87.71 $316.35

Information Media & Telecommunications

614 $50.11 $58.14 $51.87 $160.11

Financial & Insurance Services 1,296 $244.89 $289.76 $300.45 $835.10

Rental, Hiring & Real Estate Services

545 $43.27 $71.03 $31.19 $145.49

Professional, Scientific & Technical Services

2,523 $194.29 $307.10 $113.89 $615.28

Administrative & Support Services 1,125 $99.96 $162.34 $72.79 $335.09

Public Administration & Safety

2,387 $210.21 $52.21 $23.97 $286.38

Education & Training 2,796 $209.76 $18.42 $153.22 $381.40

Health Care & Social Assistance 4,057 $254.72 $6.43 $186.55 $447.70

Arts & Recreation Services 511 $21.28 $8.81 $30.71 $60.80

Other Services 1,296 $58.79 $41.77 $86.68 $187.24TOTAL 34,025 $2,471.17 $1,804.63 $1,870.70 $6,146.50

57

Value-AddedDirect Change Jobs

Direct Effect ($M)

Industrial Effect ($M)

Consump. Effect ($M) Total ($M)

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 2,277 $220.56 $224.17 $171.37 $616.10Mining 1,055 $856.12 $560.89 $140.69 $1,557.70Manufacturing 6,451 $975.95 $852.94 $643.11 $2,472.00Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services 920 $298.04 $326.49 $236.23 $860.76Construction 6,205 $794.85 $510.97 $135.21 $1,441.03Wholesale Trade 2,788 $468.02 $402.52 $439.32 $1,309.86Retail Trade 7,775 $477.21 $170.48 $755.79 $1,403.48Accommodation & Food Services 4,492 $245.89 $97.98 $390.18 $734.05Transport, Postal & Warehousing 3,750 $513.52 $474.78 $358.30 $1,346.60Information Media & Telecommunications 1,295 $319.21 $372.39 $340.70 $1,032.31Financial & Insurance Services 2,283 $885.01 $1,195.98 $1,393.58 $3,474.56Rental, Hiring & Real Estate Services 1,142 $1,123.85 $335.10 $2,037.11 $3,496.06Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 5,078 $625.07 $1,041.08 $389.00 $2,055.15Administrative & Support Services 2,987 $323.68 $424.66 $191.87 $940.22Public Administration & Safety 5,480 $613.35 $136.36 $62.04 $811.74Education & Training 5,723 $495.53 $46.89 $385.35 $927.78Health Care & Social Assistance 10,523 $800.96 $17.96 $484.56 $1,303.48Arts & Recreation Services 1,313 $95.98 $32.65 $114.79 $243.42Other Services 2,972 $201.35 $146.75 $269.84 $617.94TOTAL 74,509 $10,334.13 $7,371.03 $8,939.03 $26,644.19

58

Table 30 Simulation 5 – Impact on Employment

EmploymentDirect Change Jobs

Direct Effect (Jobs)

Industrial Effect (Jobs)

Consumption Effect (Jobs)

Total (Jobs)

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 2,277 2,277 2,248 1,684 6,208Mining 1,055 1,055 827 134 2,016Manufacturing 6,451 6,451 5,552 4,907 16,910Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services 920 920 1,005 702 2,626Construction 6,205 6,205 4,643 1,229 12,077Wholesale Trade 2,788 2,788 2,398 2,617 7,803Retail Trade 7,775 7,775 2,778 12,314 22,866Accommodation & Food Services 4,492 4,492 1,820 7,415 13,728Transport, Postal & Warehousing 3,750 3,750 3,590 2,731 10,071Information Media & Telecommunications 1,295 1,295 1,494 1,347 4,136Financial & Insurance Services 2,283 2,283 2,966 3,587 8,836Rental, Hiring & Real Estate Services 1,142 1,142 1,785 944 3,871Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 5,078 5,078 8,587 3,201 16,866Administrative & Support Services 2,987 2,987 3,961 1,913 8,861Public Administration & Safety 5,480 5,480 1,352 619 7,452Education & Training 5,723 5,723 499 4,676 10,897Health Care & Social Assistance 10,523 10,523 230 6,350 17,103Arts & Recreation Services 1,313 1,313 563 1,437 3,313Other Services 2,972 2,972 2,262 3,896 9,130TOTAL 74,509 74,509 48,558 61,703 184,770

59

Table 31 Simulation 5 - Impact on Wages and Salaries

Wages and SalariesDirect Change Jobs

Direct Effect ($M)

Industrial Effect ($M)

Consumption Effect ($M) Total ($M)

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 2,277 $52.81 $58.02 $39.74 $150.57Mining 1,055 $157.37 $118.37 $23.07 $298.82Manufacturing 6,451 $532.06 $466.76 $340.93 $1,339.75Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services 920 $104.65 $114.42 $79.45 $298.52Construction 6,205 $396.50 $261.63 $69.09 $727.22Wholesale Trade 2,788 $289.01 $248.57 $271.29 $808.87Retail Trade 7,775 $313.96 $112.16 $497.25 $923.37Accommodation & Food Services 4,492 $148.67 $59.76 $240.83 $449.25Transport, Postal & Warehousing 3,750 $261.04 $239.24 $187.20 $687.48Information Media & Telecommunications 1,295 $105.75 $123.87 $110.70 $340.31Financial & Insurance Services 2,283 $431.54 $594.78 $641.26 $1,667.58Rental, Hiring & Real Estate Services 1,142 $90.58 $151.82 $66.58 $308.98Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 5,078 $391.07 $650.38 $243.08 $1,284.52Administrative & Support Services 2,987 $265.39 $347.60 $155.35 $768.34Public Administration & Safety 5,480 $482.69 $112.48 $51.16 $646.33Education & Training 5,723 $429.40 $39.39 $327.02 $795.81Health Care & Social Assistance 10,523 $660.67 $14.24 $398.15 $1,073.06Arts & Recreation Services 1,313 $54.64 $19.47 $65.54 $139.65Other Services 2,972 $134.86 $90.29 $185.01 $410.15

TOTAL 74,509 $5,302.67 $3,823.23 $3,992.68$13,118.5

8

60

Table 32 Simulation 6 - Impact on Value-Added

Value-AddedDirect Change Jobs

Direct Effect ($M)

Industrial Effect ($M)

Consumption Effect ($M) Total ($M)

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 1,745 $169.03 $178.70 $137.36 $485.09

Mining 890 $722.22 $454.32 $112.76 $1,289.30Manufacturing 5,213 $788.66 $684.51 $515.46 $1,988.62Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services

729 $236.16 $260.92 $189.34 $686.43

Construction 4,957 $634.98 $409.62 $108.37 $1,152.98Wholesale Trade 2,269 $380.89 $322.20 $352.12 $1,055.21Retail Trade 6,246 $383.36 $136.29 $605.77 $1,125.42Accommodation & Food Services 3,655 $200.08 $78.46 $312.73 $591.26

Transport, Postal & Warehousing 2,973 $407.12 $380.82 $287.18 $1,075.12

Information Media & Telecommunications

1,041 $256.60 $298.56 $273.07 $828.24

Financial & Insurance Services 1,914 $741.96 $966.44 $1,116.96 $2,825.36

Rental, Hiring & Real Estate Services

919 $904.40 $268.50 $1,632.76 $2,805.65

Professional, Scientific & Technical Services

4,124 $507.64 $835.85 $311.79 $1,655.28

Administrative & Support Services 2,292 $248.37 $340.09 $153.79 $742.25

Public Administration & Safety

4,325 $484.08 $109.07 $49.72 $642.87

Education & Training 4,630 $400.89 $37.57 $308.86 $747.32

Health Care & Social Assistance 8,108 $617.14 $14.29 $388.37 $1,019.80

Arts & Recreation Services 1,014 $74.13 $25.97 $92.00 $192.10

Other Services 2,346 $158.94 $117.31 $216.28 $492.52

TOTAL 59,390 $8,316.63 $5,919.49 $7,164.69 $21,400.81

61

Table 33 Simulation 6 - Impact on Employment

EmploymentDirect Change Jobs

Direct Effect (Jobs)

Industrial Effect (Jobs)

Consumption Effect (Jobs)

Total (Jobs)

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 1,745 1,745 1,795 1,349 4,889

Mining 890 890 673 108 1,670Manufacturing 5,213 5,213 4,454 3,933 13,600Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services

729 729 803 562 2,095

Construction 4,957 4,957 3,722 985 9,664Wholesale Trade 2,269 2,269 1,919 2,098 6,286Retail Trade 6,246 6,246 2,221 9,870 18,336Accommodation & Food Services 3,655 3,655 1,457 5,944 11,056

Transport, Postal & Warehousing 2,973 2,973 2,878 2,189 8,040

Information Media & Telecommunications

1,041 1,041 1,198 1,080 3,319

Financial & Insurance Services 1,914 1,914 2,397 2,875 7,186

Rental, Hiring & Real Estate Services

919 919 1,430 757 3,106

Professional, Scientific & Technical Services

4,124 4,124 6,894 2,565 13,584

Administrative & Support Services 2,292 2,292 3,170 1,533 6,995

Public Administration & Safety

4,325 4,325 1,082 497 5,903

Education & Training 4,630 4,630 399 3,748 8,777

Health Care & Social Assistance 8,108 8,108 183 5,090 13,381

Arts & Recreation Services 1,014 1,014 448 1,152 2,614

Other Services 2,346 2,346 1,809 3,123 7,278TOTAL 59,390 59,390 38,931 49,455 147,776

62

Table 34 Simulation 6 - Impact on Wages and salaries

Wage and SalariesDirect Change Jobs

Direct Effect ($M)

Industrial Effect ($M)

Consumption Effect ($M)

Total ($M)

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 1,745 $40.47 $46.14 $31.86 $118.47

Mining 890 $132.76 $96.20 $18.49 $247.46Manufacturing 5,213 $429.95 $374.55 $273.26 $1,077.76Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services 729 $82.92 $91.42 $63.68 $238.02

Construction 4,957 $316.75 $209.74 $55.37 $581.87Wholesale Trade 2,269 $235.21 $198.97 $217.44 $651.62Retail Trade 6,246 $252.22 $89.67 $398.55 $740.43Accommodation & Food Services 3,655 $120.97 $47.85 $193.03 $361.85

Transport, Postal & Warehousing 2,973 $206.96 $191.85 $150.04 $548.85

Information Media & Telecommunications 1,041 $85.01 $99.32 $88.72 $273.06

Financial & Insurance Services 1,914 $361.79 $480.84 $513.97 $1,356.60

Rental, Hiring & Real Estate Services 919 $72.89 $121.65 $53.36 $247.90

Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 4,124 $317.60 $522.17 $194.83 $1,034.60

Administrative & Support Services 2,292 $203.64 $278.41 $124.51 $606.56

Public Administration & Safety 4,325 $380.95 $89.97 $41.01 $511.93

Education & Training 4,630 $347.39 $31.56 $262.11 $641.06Health Care & Social Assistance 8,108 $509.05 $11.33 $319.12 $839.49

Arts & Recreation Services 1,014 $42.20 $15.49 $52.53 $110.22Other Services 2,346 $106.45 $72.17 $148.28 $326.90TOTAL 59,390 $4,245.19 $3,069.28 $3,200.16 $10,514.63

63

Appendix 3 - List A – Conditions which are likely to meet the disability requirements in s.24 of the NDIS Act

1. Intellectual disability diagnosed and assessed as moderate, severe or profound in accordance with current DSM criteria (e.g. IQ 55 points or less and severe deficits in adaptive functioning)

2. Autism diagnosed by a specialist multi-disciplinary team, pediatrician, psychiatrist or clinical psychologist experienced in the assessment of Pervasive Developmental Disorders, and assessed using the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) diagnostic criteria as having severity of Level 2 (Requiring substantial support) or Level 3 (Requiring very substantial support)

3. Cerebral palsy diagnosed and assessed as severe (e.g. assessed as Level 3, 4 or 5 on the Gross Motor Function Classification System - GMFCS)

4. Genetic conditions that consistently result in permanent and severe intellectual and physical impairments:

Angelman syndrome

Coffin-Lowry syndrome in males

Cornelia de Lange syndrome

Cri du Chat syndrome

Edwards syndrome (Trisomy 18 – full form)

Epidermolysis Bullosa (severe forms):

o Autosomal recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa

o Hallopeau-Siemens type

o Herlitz Junctional Epidermolysis Dystrophica

Lesch-Nyhan syndrome

Leigh syndrome

Leukodystrophies:

o Alexander disease (infantile and neonatal forms)

o Canavan disease

o Krabbe disease (globoid cell leukodystrophy) – Infantile form

o Pelizaeus-Merzbacher Disease (Connatal form)

Lysosomal storage disorders resulting in severe intellectual and physical impairments:

o Gaucher disease Types 2 and 3

o Niemann-Pick disease (Types A and C)

o Pompe disease

o Sandhoff disease (infantile form)64

o Schindler disease (Type 1)

o Tay-Sachs disease (infantile form)

Mucopolysaccharidoses – the following forms:

o MPS 1-H (Hurler syndrome)

o MPS III (San Fillipo syndrome)

Osteogenesis Imperfecta (severe forms):

o Type II - with two or more fractures per year and significant deformities severely limiting ability to perform activities of daily living

Patau syndrome

Rett syndrome

Spinal Muscular Atrophies of the following types:

o Werdnig-Hoffmann disease (SMA Type 1- Infantile form)

o Dubowitz disease (SMA Type II – Intermediate form)

o X-linked spinal muscular atrophy

5. Spinal cord injury or brain injury resulting in paraplegia, quadriplegia or tetraplegia, or hemiplegia where there is severe or total loss of strength and movement in the affected limbs of the body

6. Permanent blindness in both eyes, diagnosed and assessed by an ophthalmologist as follows:

a. Corrected visual acuity (extent to which an object can be brought into focus) on the Snellen Scale must be less than or equal to 6/60 in both eyes; or

b. Constriction to within 10 degrees or less of arc of central fixation in the better eye, irrespective of corrected visual acuity (i.e. visual fields are reduced to a measured arc of 10 degrees or less); or

c. A combination of visual defects resulting in the same degree of visual impairment as that occurring in the above points.

(An optometrist report is not sufficient for NDIS purposes.)

7. Deafblindness confirmed by ophthalmologist and audiologist and assessed as resulting in permanent and severe to total impairment of visual function and hearing

8. Amputation or congenital absence of two limbs

65

Appendix 4 - List B – Conditions for which permanent impairment/functional capacity are variable and further assessment of functional capacity generally is required

Note: Synonyms for conditions are also shown e.g. condition/ synonym/ synonym

Conditions primarily resulting in Intellectual/ learning impairment Intellectual disability Pervasive developmental disorders not meeting severity criteria in List A of this Operational

Guideline or List C of Operational Guideline – Access – Early Intervention Requirements: Asperger syndrome Atypical autism Childhood autism

Chromosomal abnormalities resulting in permanent impairment and not specified on List A:

Aicardi-Goutières syndrome CHARGE syndrome Cockayne syndrome Types I and Type II/Cerebro-oculo-faciao-skeletal (COFS)

syndrome /Pena Shokeir syndrome Type II/Weber-Cockayne syndrome/Neill-Dingwall syndrome)

Cohen syndrome Dandy-Walker syndrome DiGeorge syndrome /22q11.2 deletion syndrome/Velocardiofacial syndrome/ Shprintzen

syndrome/Conotruncal anomaly face syndrome Down syndrome Fragile X syndrome Kabuki syndrome Menkes disease Prader-Willi syndrome Seckel syndrome /microcephalic primordial dwarfism/Harper’s syndrome/Virchow-Seckel

dwarfism Smith-Lemli-Optiz syndrome Smith-Magenis syndrome Spinal muscular atrophy Types III and IV Sturge-Weber syndrome Trisomy 9 Tuberous sclerosis Turner syndrome Williams syndrome Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome

Conditions primarily resulting in Neurological impairment Alzheimer’s dementia Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease HIV dementia Huntington’s disease Multi-infarct dementia Parkinson’s disease

66

Post polio syndrome Vascular dementia

Systemic atrophies primarily affecting the central nervous system: Abetalipoproteinaemia Adult-onset spinal muscular atrophy/late-onset SMA type III) Fazio-Londe disease/Progressive bulbar palsy of childhood Friedrich’s ataxia Hereditary spastic paraplegia/ Infantile-onset ascending hereditary spastic paralysis/ L1

syndrome/ spastic paraplegias types 2 and 11Huntington’s disease/Huntington’s chorea Louis-Bar syndrome/Ataxia-telangiectasia Motor neuron disease/Motor neurone disease/ Lou Gehrig’s disease /Amyotrophic lateral

sclerosis Primary lateral sclerosis Progressive bulbar palsy Spinal muscular atrophy – all types Spinocerebellar Ataxia – all types, including Machado-Joseph disease

Extrapyramidal and movement disorders Hallervorden-Spatz syndrome /Pantothenate kinase-associated neurodegeneration

(PKAN)/neurodegeneration with brain iron accumulation 1 (NBIA 1) Parkinson’s disease Shy-Drager syndrome /Multiple System Atrophy /Striatonigral degeneration (MSA-P)/

Sporadic olivopontocerebellar atrophy (MSA-C) Steele-Richardson-Olszewski syndrome/Progressive supranuclear ophthalmoplegia Stiff-man syndrome /Stiff-person syndrome

Other degenerative diseases of the nervous system Alzheimer’s disease Alpers disease/Grey-matter degeneration/Alpers syndrome/progressive sclerosing

poliodystrophy/progressive infantile poliodystrophy Lewy body dementia Pick’s disease

Demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system Adrenoleukodystrophy Multiple sclerosis Schilder’s disease /Diffuse myelinoclastic sclerosis – non-remitting

Episodic and paroxysmal disorders Brain stem stroke syndrome Cerebellar stroke syndrome Motor and sensory lacunar syndromes Lennox syndrome /Lennox-Gastaut syndrome West’s syndrome

Polyneuropathies and other disorders of the peripheral nervous system Adult Refsum disease Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease/Hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy/ peroneal muscular

atrophy Dejerine-Sottas disease /Dejerine-Sottas syndrome/Dejerine-Sottas

neuropathy/progressive hypertrophic interstitial polyneuropathy of childhood/onion bulb neuropathy

Infantile Refsum diseaseOther disorders of the nervous system

67

Hydrocephalus Multiple system atrophy

Conditions resulting in Physical impairment Amputations Congenital absence of limb or part thereof Epidermolysis bullosa Harlequin type icthyosis Juvenile arthritis / Stills Disease (excluding monocyclic/self-limited Adult Onset Stills

disease) Rheumatoid arthritisDiseases of myoneural junction and muscle Andersen-Tawil syndrome/ Periodic paralysis /myoplegia paroxysmalis familiaris Becker muscular dystrophy Congenital muscular dystrophy Distal muscular dystrophy Duchenne muscular dystrophy Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy Limb-girdle muscular dystrophy Mitochondrial myopathy Myotonic dystrophy /dystrophia myotonica Myotonic muscular dystrophy Myotubular myopathy Oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy Paramyotonia Congenita Thomsens disease /Congenital myotonia/ Becker myotonia)Cerebral palsy and other paralytic syndromes not meeting severity criteria on List A Cerebral palsy Diplegia Hemiplegia Monoplegia Paraplegia Quadriplegia Tetraplegia

Conditions resulting in Sensory and/or Speech impairmentDisorders of the choroid and retina where permanent blindness diagnostic and severity criteria on List A are not met: Behr’s syndrome Kearns-Sayre syndrome Optic atrophy Retinitis pigmentosa Retinoschisis (degenerative and hereditary types/juvenile retinoschisis) Stargardt disease Usher syndrome

68

Disorders resulting in hearing loss Cortical deafness Pendred syndrome Sensorineural hearing loss Stickler syndrome Usher syndrome Waardenburg syndrome

Conditions resulting in multiple types of impairment Aceruloplasminemia Addison-Schilder disease /Adrenoleukodystrophy Albinism Arginosuccinic aciduria Aspartylglucosaminuria Cerebrotendinous xanthomatosis /cerebral cholesterosis Congenital cytomegalovirus infection Congenital iodine-deficiency syndrome /cretinism Congenital rubella syndrome Glycine encephalopathy /non-ketotic hyperglycinaemia GM1 gangliosidosis Hartnup disease Homocystinuria Lowe syndrome/ Oculocerebrorenal syndrome Mannosidosis Menkes disease Mucolipidosis II /I-cell disease Mucolipidosis III /pseudo-Hurler polydystrophy Mucolipidosis IV Neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis (NCL)/ Adult type (Kuf’s or Parry’s disease)/ Juvenile (Batten

disease)/ Late infantile (Jansky-Bielschowsky) Niemann-Pick disease Pyruvate carboxylase deficiency Pyruvate dehydrogenase deficiency Sialidosis Sulfite oxidase deficiencyThe following mucopolysaccharidoses: Scheie syndrome /MPS 1-H Hurler-Scheie syndrome /MPS 1 H-S Hunter syndrome /MPS II Morquio syndrome /MPS IVA Maroteaux-Lamy syndrome /MPS VI Sly syndrome /MPS VIICongenital conditions – cases where malformations cannot be corrected by surgery or other treatment and result in permanent impairment but with variable severity: Arnold-Chiari Types 2 and 3/Chiari malformation Microcephaly Fetal alcohol syndrome Fetal hydantoin syndrome Spina bifida

69

VATER syndrome /VACTERL association

70