The claim's core figures are **accurate** but require significant context qualification.
**Monthly staffing costs verified:** As of March 31, 2021, the NDIA (National Disability Insurance Agency) was spending AU$246,267 per month on staff costs to develop the My NDIS mobile app [1].
This figure includes 13.2 full-time equivalent employees working specifically on app development [1].
**Total project spending:** By February 2021, the project had spent AU$1.55 million across five suppliers: DB Results (AU$1.393 million), Optus (AU$112,000), yReceipts, HBLL, and Clayton Utz (AU$11,000) [1].
**Timeline:** Work on the app began in July 2019 [1].
The ZDNet article was published in May 2021, discussing development status through the first quarter of that fiscal year.
**Trial participant numbers:** There were 422 participants in the trial of the app - significantly smaller than the original NDIS trials which captured approximately 30,000 people [1].
The Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS had issued a 2018 report titled "NDIS ICT Systems" that recommended "the NDIA work with service providers and participants to codesign future enhancements to the portals and 'Provider Finder'" [2].
The Joint Standing Committee's 2018 report documented systematic accessibility failures in NDIS communications that the app was designed to address:
- Website navigation was described as "impossible to navigate: you go round in circles and still can't get answers" [3]
- Portal accessibility was found to lack "basic accessibility options such as alternative font sizes, and information in other languages, or Easy English" [3]
- Communication tools were "not fit-for-purpose for many participants" including those who "physically can't open letters" and people "with a cognitive disability who cannot understand the bureaucratic language" [3]
- Approximately 60% of NDIS participants have some form of intellectual disability or autism, requiring specialized digital interfaces [3]
The app was explicitly designed to address these documented accessibility barriers, not as an unnecessary innovation [3].
The claim states "no data about how many users wanted the app," but NDIA records show 570 pieces of feedback were collected from the 422 trial participants [1].
A mobile application for the NDIS myplace portal would meet the needs of many of its users, including the desire for an easily accessible interface" [1].
The NDIA explained that the team's work included [1]:
- Conducting procurements and technology feasibility evaluations
- Building prototypes
- Evaluating user experience and user interface design for accessibility needs
- Coding the app
- Working with Services Australia to develop inter-system connections (APIs and myGov integration)
- Identifying issues and prioritizing product features
- Engaging with stakeholders and change management coordination
- Engaging with participants for user stories, interviews, and running test sessions
- Managing the pilot group
The then-Secretary of the Department of Social Services stated the long-term government plan was "one app for all Commonwealth government services" integrating Medicare, ATO tax, NDIS, and other services through myGov [1].
**ZDNet (Original Source):** ZDNet is a mainstream technology news publication owned by Ziff Davis and is generally considered a credible source for IT and technology policy reporting.
然而 rán ér , , 该 gāi 文章 wén zhāng 的 de 框架 kuāng jià 强调 qiáng diào 批评 pī píng , , 而 ér 没有 méi yǒu 实质性 shí zhì xìng 地 dì 涉及 shè jí NDIA NDIA 在 zài 参议院 cān yì yuàn 预算 yù suàn 委员会 wěi yuán huì 回应 huí yìng 中 zhōng 提供 tí gōng 的 de 论证 lùn zhèng 。 。
However, the article's framing emphasizes criticisms without substantively engaging with the justifications provided by the NDIA in their Senate Estimates responses.
The headline "Nearly AU$250,000 spent per month" emphasizes cost without context about what services and accessibility outcomes were being delivered.
**Senate Estimates Response (Primary Source):** The NDIA's responses to Senate Estimates questions on notice represent official government documentation and are available in parliamentary records [1].
These are reliable sources for factual figures about spending and project scope, though naturally they reflect the government's own justification for the work.
**Joint Standing Committee Report:** The 2018 Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS report is a parliamentary inquiry document and represents cross-party scrutiny of NDIS ICT systems [2].
这些 zhè xiē 是 shì 有关 yǒu guān 支出 zhī chū 和 hé 项目 xiàng mù 范围 fàn wéi 事实 shì shí 数据 shù jù 的 de 可靠 kě kào 来源 lái yuán , , 尽管 jǐn guǎn 它们 tā men 自然 zì rán 反映 fǎn yìng 了 le 政府 zhèng fǔ 对 duì 自己 zì jǐ 工作 gōng zuò 的 de 论证 lùn zhèng 。 。
It documents genuine problems that required technology solutions.
**Did Labor pursue similar digital investments in NDIS?**
Search conducted: "Labor NDIS digital reforms technology investment Albanese government"
**Finding:** Under the Albanese Labor government (2022-present), the approach to NDIS technology has shifted emphasis but not eliminated technology investment.
* * * *
The NDIS Review (conducted 2022-2023) explicitly recommended "a serious software update" for the NDIS including "a new payment system, a central platform to find providers, and new capabilities to detect fraud" [4].
搜索 sōu suǒ 关键词 guān jiàn cí : : " " Labor Labor NDIS NDIS digital digital reforms reforms technology technology investment investment Albanese Albanese government government " "
The Albanese government has continued funding NDIS digital improvements, including AU$5.3 million in 2024-25 for "preliminary work on possible NDIS pricing function reforms to strengthen transparency, predictability, and alignment" [5].
Rather than proving no need for the original app investment, Labor's continuation of NDIS digital transformation actually validates that NDIS technology modernization is a genuine, bipartisan need [4][5].
The cost per trial participant
These are reasonable questions to ask about government spending prioritization.
**Government's Justification:**
However, the government's responses reveal the app was not frivolous:
1. **Parliamentary Recommendation:** The project responded to a 2018 Joint Standing Committee recommendation to improve digital accessibility for NDIS participants [2]
2. **Documented Accessibility Crisis:** The 2018 parliamentary inquiry documented systemic problems with existing NDIS communication tools that were failing 60% of participants (those with intellectual disability or autism) [3]
3. **Participant Feedback:** While the trial was small, collected feedback from trial participants was reportedly positive about accessibility improvements [1]
4. **Broader Digital Strategy:** This was part of a government-wide digital transformation to integrate Commonwealth services through myGov [1]
5. **Reasonable Development Approach:** Starting with a 422-person trial before nationwide rollout is standard product development practice, not wasteful [1]
**Comparative Context:**
Unlike COVIDSafe (which cost AU$21 million and identified only a handful of positive COVID cases before being scrapped), the NDIS app [6]:
- Addressed documented accessibility barriers
- Was developed in response to parliamentary recommendations
- Had reported positive user feedback from trial participants
- Continued as an ongoing development project (not abandoned)
The key difference is that COVIDSafe was launched without clear evidence of effectiveness and subsequently proved ineffective, while the NDIS app development was grounded in identified accessibility problems and parliamentary recommendations.
However, the claim that "they have no data about how many users wanted the app" is contradicted by the 570 pieces of feedback collected from 422 trial participants [1].
A bipartisan commitment to NDIS digital transformation (continued by Labor government) [4][5]
The monthly cost is a legitimate fact to highlight when discussing government spending accountability, but presenting it without this context creates a misleading impression that the project was unnecessary or unwanted by participants.
However, the claim that "they have no data about how many users wanted the app" is contradicted by the 570 pieces of feedback collected from 422 trial participants [1].
A bipartisan commitment to NDIS digital transformation (continued by Labor government) [4][5]
The monthly cost is a legitimate fact to highlight when discussing government spending accountability, but presenting it without this context creates a misleading impression that the project was unnecessary or unwanted by participants.