Analysis Of NDIS And Social Justice Policy: An Essay On Disability Insurance Scheme.

Background/ History of NIDS

Social justice refers to a political and intellectual philosophy that emphasises the notion of fairness and justice in society and equitable access to income, opportunity, and social advantages. The goal of social justice policy is to bring about parity among diverse and distinct people in society through some form of governmental intervention through welfare mechanism. In order to determine the extent to which NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme) contributes to a more socially fair Australia, it is being studied. The NDIS reflects a substantial shift in government policy toward the disabled community, one that is in line with a global trend toward personalisation in social care (Mavromaras et al., 2018). The primary goal of the NDIS is to ensure that all Australians who are permanently disabled before the age of 65 receive the reasonable and essential services they need to lead a normal life, regardless of their age (Bradley & Goggin, 2019). For further analysis of the NIDS principle and how it could contribute to a more socially just Australia, the article will be divided under the following paragraph: a brief background or history of NIDS, ideological influence of the policy, comparing the policy with another regime and evaluation of the policy.  

The National Disability Insurance Program (NDIS) helps persons who have a long-term and severe disability that severely limits their capacity to participate in daily activities. An extensive overhaul of disability services in Australia that better represents the needs of persons with disabilities was created out of years of discussion over its necessity. The programme came into being after a public investigation into a long-term disability care and assistance programme was originally requested by the Australian government in 2010 (Green, J., & Mears, 2014). The Productivity Commission, who was in charge of the investigation, received over a thousand responses from persons with impairments and disability community groups (Butteriss, 2012). The Productivity Commission concluded that persons with disabilities had limited choice and no guarantee of access to the needed assistance. Most families and individuals are unable to plan for the possibility of one or more members of their family becoming disabled, hence a system similar to Medicare that relies on insurance should be introduced. The National Disability Insurance Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Agency were established as a consequence of the NDIS Act 2013 being approved in March of that year. NDIS programme was gradually extended across Australia's states between 2016 and 2019 following an eight-site trial programme in July 2013. (Laragy & Fisher, 2020). Through the NIDS programme, improvements in the service sector are expected to better reflect the requirements of people with disabilities as a consequence of these efforts. Progress toward disability rights recognition, protection, and protection has reached its apex here.

Ideological Shift through NIDS

Government officials requested the Productivity Commission for an examination into the best ways to offer disability support and care in Australia in 2011. It was recommended by the Productivity Commission that people with disabilities be given a greater degree of choice and control over their care and support, in line with neoliberal economic principles. Neoliberal markets, as applied to health and disability, are seen as a chance to provide improved service provision where government services are perceived as expensive and inefficient (Carey et al., 2018). As part of the NIDS programme, disabled people can choose from a wide range of service providers to obtain disability services. So, instead of being acclimated to a service model, most people with disabilities now have a consumer model centred on the market. As a result, consumers are now forced to demand the services they want. Disability service providers who "know better" and want to profit may take advantage of persons with disabilities because of the paradigm change from a service-based to a market-based paradigm. Indeed, they have a good sense of what's in their own best interest. The neoliberal notion of privatisation on the NDIS was adopted by state governments by handing over public disability services to commercial or non-profit organisations. These developments have wreaked havoc on the lives of the disabled. As a result, huge firms such as SERCO began investigating ways to enter the NDIS market and profit from the multibillion-dollar initiative (Edward, 2019). This NIDS strategy intends to save government spending by limiting the agency's employment, prohibiting persons from being reviewed in order to get aid, and resulting in an underspend that might be utilised for political objectives.

In spite of the fact that the United Kingdom (UK) does not have a national insurance disability scheme, it does have the Disability Discrimination Act, which was superseded by the Equality Act of 2010 in which aims to support disable people in various health care services. The Equality Act provides a wide range of financial and care assistance services, generally referred to as disability payments. Employment Support Allowance (ESA) and Universal Credit (UC) have replaced Incapacity Benefit and Income Support for disabled persons (Hill & Roger, 2016). Under the Universal credit system, a disable person will be entitled to income allowance, disability premium and other health care services. Under these programmes disable people will also be able avail housing and child care benefit. Thus, under this scheme disable people not only get the opportunity of health care services but certain allowances for their sustenance. According to Fell & Dyban (2017) opined that disability applicants are 53% more likely than non-disabled claimants to have their payments sanctioned by the Social Security Administration (SSA). As a result, the Equality Act offers a wide range of benefits to persons with disabilities rather than only disability insurance. Disabled persons have reaped the benefits of these welfare programmes, including housing, employment, and other allowances.

Disability Programme in the United Kingdom

The National Disability Insurance Program (NDIS) was created to assist those with long-term and severe impairments that limit their capacity to do everyday tasks. In order to do so, it determines what sort of help a person with a disability needs to pursue their ambitions. By providing early intervention, the NDIS aims to reduce the burden of impairment on impaired or disabled children. The number of individuals with disabilities in Australia is estimated to be over 4.3 million, according to official estimates. During the next five years, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) will give more than $22 billion in annual assistance to more than 500,000 Australians with serious and chronic disabilities (Ho, 2022). Many people will receive support for the first time because of their disability. In addition, it tries to help disabled people and Aboriginal people find a fair distribution system. NDIS, on the surface, looks to be a beneficial investment that fulfils the shared aim to treat all individuals with respect and as equal citizens. However, this is only the beginning. While many NDIS participants are enjoying significant advantages from the scheme, adding the NDIA to ensure that participants are able to feel engaged and supported in the broader community is important as well (Lloyd et al., 2022). People with episodic or temporary illnesses and impairments that need some level of care but do not qualify for NDIS financing are still uncertain about the present arrangements' impact on them.

Conclusion

For the first time in a generation, Australia is implementing a comprehensive disability reform programme. NDIS is the only system of its kind in the world. A generational shift has been likened to the Medicare program's influence on society in different ways. NDIS is based on the concept of choice and control, a change from previous welfare models. A portion of the program's proceeds will go toward providing customers with disabilities with the freedom to choose the products and services they want. Despite the fact that certain firms have expressed worries about profiting from the NIDS industry. People with disabilities, on the other hand, will be able to spend the money they get on programmes that are tailored to their individual needs and goals.

References

Butteriss, M. A. (2012). NDIS: In context. Journal of Social Inclusion, 3(2), 102-107.

Carey, G., Malbon, E., Marjolin, A., & Reeders, D. (2018). NDIS markets: Market stewardship actions for the NDIS.

https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2018-10/apo-nid198046.pdf

Edwards, T. (2019). A disabling ideology: Challenging the neoliberal co-optation of independent living under the NDIS. Journal of Australian Political Economy, (83), 32-59. https://www.ppesydney.net/content/uploads/2020/05/A-disabling-ideology-Challenging-the-neoliberal-co-optation-of-independent-living-under-the-ndis.pdf

Fell, E. V., & Dyban, M. (2017). Against discrimination: equality act 2010 (UK). The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences (EpSBS). Vol. 19: Lifelong Wellbeing in the World (WELLSO 2016).—Nicosia, 2017., 192016, 188-194.

https://earchive.tpu.ru/bitstream/11683/37248/1/dx.doi.org-10.15405-epsbs.2017.01.25.pdf

Green, J., & Mears, J. (2014). The implementation of the NDIS: Who wins, who loses?. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6(2), 25-39. https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/44122/1/Darcy%20Maxwell%20%26%20Green%202016%20Disability%20Citizenship%20and%20Independence%20through%20Mobile%20Technology.pdf

Hadley, B., & Goggin, G. (2019). The NDIS and disability arts in Australia: Opportunities and challenges. Australasian Drama Studies, (74), 9-38. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.381515791328231

Hill, S., & Roger, A. (2016). The experience of disabled and non-disabled students on professional practice placements in the United Kingdom. Disability & Society, 31(9), 1205-1225.

https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/ws/files/10795145/D_S_article_final_version_accepted_for_publication.pdf

Ho, W. (2022). Evaluating the impact of the NDIS on the health and safety of Australian workers in the disability sector.
https://doi.org/10.14264/730b2f1

Laragy, C., & Fisher, K. R. (2020). Choice, Control and Individual Funding: The Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme. Choice, Preference, and Disability, 133-154.

Lloyd, J., Moni, K., Cuskelly, M., & Jobling, A. (2022). The National Disability Insurance Scheme: voices of adults with intellectual disabilities. Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/23297018.2021.2004382

Mavromaras, K., Moskos, M., Mahuteau, S., Isherwood, L., Goode, A., Walton, H., ... & Flavel, J. (2018). Evaluation of the NDIS.

https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2018-04/apo-nid143516_1.pdf