Jericho argues budget prioritises tax breaks for wealthy over NDIS and dental care

Guardian columnist and Australia Institute chief economist Greg Jericho has published an opinion piece arguing that the Australian government’s latest budget exposes a fundamental misalignment in national priorities. Jericho contends that the fiscal package imposes significant reductions on the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) while simultaneously protecting tax concessions for wealthy Australians.

The article cites data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the 2024-25 financial year, revealing that 25 per cent of Australians delay seeing a dentist when necessary. This figure stands in stark contrast to the 1 per cent of people who delay visits to general practitioners. Jericho notes that nearly two-thirds of individuals postpone dental care due to cost, whereas cost is a factor for only 29 per cent of those delaying GP appointments.

Jericho illustrates the financial burden of dental care with a personal account, noting an out-of-pocket expense of $237 for a filling despite holding private health insurance. He highlights that 14 per cent of Australians do not just delay but entirely avoid dental visits, a disparity he attributes to the link between dental avoidance and socioeconomic disadvantage.

The piece contrasts these healthcare access issues with the political discourse surrounding tax reforms. Jericho points out that the Parliamentary Budget Office has estimated the cost of including dental care in Medicare at approximately $13.6 billion for the current financial year. He notes that a proposed tax on gas exports could raise around $17 billion annually, suggesting alternative funding mechanisms that have received little attention from media commentators.

Regarding the NDIS, Jericho describes an approximate 11 per cent cut in real terms as the budget’s largest reduction. He disputes claims by the Liberal National Party (LNP) and One Nation that new tax reforms negatively impact families with disabled children, stating that special disability trusts were specifically exempted from the changes to testamentary discretionary trusts.

Jericho argues that the media and opposition have focused disproportionately on the loss of tax breaks for high-income earners, such as those involving negative gearing and capital gains. He criticises the narrative that frames the wealthy as the primary victims of the budget, while the impacts on people with disabilities, including those with Down syndrome, are treated as necessary adjustments.

The article concludes by questioning the societal values reflected in the budget response. Jericho writes that it is rare to see such a stark divergence where people with disabilities suffer significant service cuts while the wealthiest members of society lose tax concessions, yet the latter group is portrayed as the most deserving of public concern.