Who would object to it? I would not - in principle. Just as I think NDIS is a great opportunity - if we get it right.
A medical model? Like focusing on people with “severe and profound” disabilities?
A market model? Like casting disability as an expensive burden, or an insurance risk?
Or a social or ecological model, where dominant social values and practices (like that of the medical and economic model) play major roles in manufacturing disability out of impairment?
Astoundingly, as a stated needs-based scheme, it also refuses to look at what needs are, and instead has already narrowed them down to the number of 'interventions' a person with a severe/profound disability requires. Why? Because an NDIS that would take into account real needs, informed not only by such criteria, but also by the heightened vulnerability of people with disabilities, might no longer see Treasury balance sheet Deliverance from the huge financial liability of a growing disability pension, services, and low employment scenario, in the way that is envisaged by government
And I would certainly object to any medical/market-model/NDIS winding the clock back in WA on its journey in individual funding!
Why not use WA as a model instead, improve on it, and implement it?
Why wait for an NDIS? It's a "Long-term" scheme!
- Aboriginal people with disability,
- intellectual disability,
- people with Down Syndrome.
- people with autism,
- people with disabilities from ethnic and non-English speaking backgrounds,
- people with psychiatric disabilities,
- and so on?
Many of them will not be eligible for NDIS benefits. And I have seen no explorations by the people who run the NDIS campaign as to how their needs would be met.
Actions! Not words!
"Ordinary lives" of people with disability, like most people's lives, are full of change, ups and downs, and what constitutes a "good life" is best found in the processes around any of us. The quality of their relationships, community interactions and so on. Little things often, not easily counted and measured. Trust is required in such processes.
But how can an NDIS that started off with an accountant's report on which medically-labeled category of people with disabilities cost the most, based on interventions, do this?
You tell me.
An NDIS that would deliver individual funding must be rooted in needs at that grassroots level and accept enabling processes that it cannot count.
So far, regrettably, there have been few public critical disability voices trying to engage with this huge opportunity that an NDIS represents. If these voices do not let themselves be heard now, where it counts, future generations will scratch their heads why they didn't, and why they have to live with more-of-the same.
More of those same disabling values and attitudes that once fueled the disability movement to raise its voice in the first place.