Abstract:
Individuals in Australia who are living with a disability are eligible to get individualised support through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). On the other hand, numerous participants in the NDIS have voiced concerns about the intricacies and eccentricities of the scheme's language and decision-making processes, which may have a substantial influence on the results that they obtain. Individuals who come from communities with a varied range of ethnicities and those who are unable to communicate in Australian Standard English may find these challenges particularly challenging (ASE). This is a summary of the influence that the specialist terminology used by the NDIS, the demand for specific medical and therapy reports, and the requirement for advocacy support or political involvement have on the consistency and equity of the distribution of NDIS money. In addition, there are some suggestions for resolving these problems to make the NDIS more accessible and equitable for everyone.
Keywords: NDIS, language, decision-making, accessibility, equity, medical reports, advocacy support, political intervention, ethnically diverse communities
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is an Australian government programme that was developed to give people with disabilities access to individualised care and financial assistance. On the other hand, numerous participants in the NDIS have voiced concerns about the intricacies and eccentricities of the scheme's language as well as the decision-making processes, which may have a substantial influence on the outcomes they obtain. These difficulties can be especially challenging for people who come from areas that are rich in racial and ethnic diversity as well as those who do not speak Australian Standard English (ASE) (Reeve, 2021).
Because of the specialised nature of the NDIS language, there is a risk of individuals feeling excluded and alone because of their interactions with it. Participants and their families frequently come across unfamiliar terms, abbreviations, and acronyms, such as "reasonable and necessary" or "support coordination," which have specific meanings within the NDIS that may not align with common usage or understanding. For example, "R&N" stands for "reasonable and necessary." This poses a barrier for those who are less familiar with the scheme's terminology, making it difficult for them to adequately explain their needs and perhaps resulting in lower funding and support (Roulstone, Prideaux, & Thomas, 2018).
The need that various medical and therapy reports be written in a particular way is another key issue that participants have described as being a problem. This requirement may have an effect on the amount of financing that participants receive. Because of this, the reliability and objectivity of the NDIS decision-making process are called into question. It's possible that some types of reports, or reports written by professions, will be accorded more weight than others, which could lead to an unequal distribution of support and money. In addition, people who come from communities with a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds may have a harder time gaining access to appropriate medical care, which may influence the quality and availability of the reports their doctors and therapists have written about them. This further disadvantages these people in the decision-making process for the NDIS (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2017).
The requirement of having advocacy support or political intervention in order to acquire the requisite degree of support can potentially increase existing gaps in access to support and financing, in particular for those who are members of ethnically diverse communities. Although providing participants with advocacy support and political intervention can be important components of ensuring that participants receive the support they require, these activities should not be prerequisites for achieving equal access to NDIS funding. Participants should not be required to have political representation in order to gain access to the right degree of support, nor should advocacy support be a prerequisite for participation. This points to the possibility of a power and influence imbalance, which may be unequally dispersed across a variety of geographical locations, socioeconomic categories, and political affiliations (Powell & Johnson, 2018).
In conclusion, the specialist terminology used by the NDIS, the requirement for specialised medical and therapy reports, and the necessity for advocacy support or political intervention can all contribute to discrepancies and injustices in the distribution of NDIS resources. These challenges present a difficulty to the purpose of the NDIS to provide equal and individualised care to people with disabilities, in particular people with disabilities who come from communities with a diverse ethnic makeup and people who do not speak ASE. It is essential to address these issues by making certain that the language that is used within the NDIS is accessible, that decision-making processes are transparent and impartial, and that participants have access to the necessary support without relying on external advocacy support or political intervention (Wallace T. ,Fraser-Barbour E. 2021).
Australian Human Rights Commission. (2017). Free and equal: An Australian conversation on human rights. Retrieved from https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/Free-and-equal.pdf
Powell, C. R., & Johnson, K. R. (2018). Advocacy as a tool for empowerment in disability policy. Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation, 17(1-2), 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/1536710X.2017.1414204
Reeve, D. (2021). NDIS language and jargon: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Disability Support Guide. https://www.disabilitysupportguide.com.au/talking-disability/ndis-language-and-jargon-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly
Roulstone, A., Prideaux, S., & Thomas, C. (2018). Language and the materiality of institutional power: Negotiating the terms of the UK's National Health Service. Sociology of Health & Illness, 40(2), 319-334. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12622
Wallace T,, Fraser-Barbour E (2021) Focus group report National Disability Data Asset OCTOBER 2021 https://ndda.dss.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/purple-orange-focus-group-report.pdf
