DOING SOMETHING ABOUT DISABILITY IS NOT ENOUGH!
Let's play a word association game.....
AUTISM: reports, specialists, advice, medical evidence, studies, investigations.
DISABILITY: NDIS, needs funding, studies, reports, protocols, time, advice, policies and politics.
This is what surrounds the above two words within the press lately. Words that in essence, mean absolutely nothing to a person or family living with a disability. The standard response when questioned on "where" is the help?
"Well, at least we are doing something!"
The following article was recently published on the Australian ABC Website. Todd Winther has never been one to hold back his opinion..... so his recent post on "Ramp Up"... some interesting points about Disability support in Australia.
This issue comes off the back of a recent phone call to our family, stating that our respite hours of 2.5 hours per week will be cut again due to funding and availability constraints.
This was the only support we received and now that is gone too.
My son receives absolutely nothing from Disability Queensland. His Autism funding ran out early this year when he turned 7 years old. Our constant applications for support are unanswered by D.S.Q Now as a sole parent, and full time carer of two children both with special needs..... we will be entitled to a big fat NOTHING from the government to assist.
Where is Julia Gillard's promised funding of improving services for mental health and disability?
Apparently D.S.Q have no spare funding .... well that is what I have been told anyway. Straight from the horses mouth you could say!
Yes, our Disability sectors need reform but something tells me that, if this Government is looking at making it EVEN more difficult to apply for a disability pension.... then there will be ridiculous guidelines for the National Disability Insurance Scheme too.
Don't these bureaucrats realise who these policies and guidelines are hurting?
Maybe they should pick on someone more their own size and cease bullying the disadvantaged!
Doing "something"about disability is not enough
Todd Winther: Ramp Up: 21 Sep 2011
The National Disability Insurance Scheme needs to be a solid policy, not just a theory.Credit: dem10 (iStockphoto)
Imagine this: A report finds without a shadow of doubt that the standard of schools in Australia are drastically below par. In fact, the first sentence of such a report suggests the nation's schools are under-funded, under-resourced and under-valued.
The Government releases the report and says: "We know there is a problem, but we can't do anything about it right now, because we can't afford it. But don't worry, we'll do something in the next seven years, promise!" Every parent with school age children would be up in arms. Teachers would march on Parliament House in a riot. Principals would call it an outrage. It would make front page news. Certainly no one would welcome the Government's "contribution" to the debate by finally recognising there was a problem.
Yet when the Productivity Commission released its report into Disability Support Services last month this was exactly what happened. Granted, not all were happy with the seven year timeline, but the great majority were satisfied that at least "something" was happening in the way of disability policy.
It did not matter that the contribution to the debate was inadequate, the policy suggestions were second rate and there was nothing in the actual report that could be implemented. "Something" was being done. But the question is: was it the right thing and was it enough? Or would we be better off doing nothing?
I have been a vocal critic of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) for quite some time. I've perhaps been its loudest dissenter.
That was not always the case. Initially, I was supportive of the concept behind the scheme. It's a fantastic idea.
As soon as I saw the detail I became aware of the many flaws of the NDIS as presented by Every Australian Counts (EAC) and the Productivity Commission (PC).
All they have to offer is a wonderful theory which is heavy on (necessary) economic forecasting but is light on policy targets.
For example, the PC report suggests that there should be three different criteria to determine who is eligible for assistance. But it does not answer some very basic and important questions: What determines eligibility? How will this process work? Who determines eligibility?
When I proposed these important questions to one of EAC's chief spin doctors last week, my concerns were dismissed, almost as if I asked something completely irrelevant. I was told that such determinations were not part of the PC's jurisdiction.
I disagree with that. But let's suppose they're correct. EAC has done everything in reverse order and botched its chance to influence real policy change in the process. EAC has formulated a theory, not a "policy" because there are no criteria to assess the results. They have suggested that the NDIS as proposed is the only way that disability services can be improved.
There were no suggestions of alternatives, no consultations about what people within the disability sector would want from such a policy, no actual trials of different methods to see what is viable. It's ineffective policymaking.
If anybody disagreed with the NDIS, they must have been against disability sector reform, because it was the only choice they offered.
If policymaking was done with due diligence, perhaps the PC report might have had some teeth. It would have had meaningful policy targets, a way people could actually measure the policy's progress in an effective manner and set some concrete targets.
It is not the PC's fault entirely. They were handed an absolute turkey. If EAC were smart they might have done some legwork beforehand before trying to sell a pile of magic beans that will more than likely turn into a noxious weed rather than a tall beanstalk.
Without effective policy targets, of course the Government could delay the final NDIS roll-out for two more elections, and even further if it wants to. It is conceivable that the Prime Minister at this time may not have yet taken their seat in Parliament as an MP. But both major parties can say in 2018: "At least we did "something" in 2011. We told the sector that it was undervalued, under funded and under resourced".
I don't know about you, but I have been told that every year since I can remember. Excuse me while I starve to death.
Todd Winther is a PhD candidate in political science and can be found blogging at
This article was originally published on The Punch.
