How did the NDIS lose its "social license"?

 

By Helen Said, Autistic advocate, Melbourne Australia

Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme services are about to be cut. Labor leaders say that the NDIS has lost its "social license", but what is this "social license" and how did it get lost? 

After our longtime Disability Minister, Bill Shorten, retired from parliament, his portfolios were taken over by Mark Butler MP. Health and Disability were placed under the same government minister, supposedly to give Disability more attention. In fact the reverse is the case - combining Health and Disability reinforces the outdated and disempowering Medical Model of Disability**, which contributes to disabled people's invisibility in society and government decision making processes. As long as disability is viewed through the same lens as sickness, disabled people will be seen as unfortunates in need of a cure, rather than a people in need of access and rights. Thus disabled people's social, emotional, recreational and economic needs will be more easily overlooked. Government expenditure to meet these needs will be regarded as an expensive social experiment that must be curtailed during hard economic times. 

The Disability Royal Commission called for the creation of a Department for Disability Equality, with disabled employees. Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Rosemary Kayess, called for a Minister for Disability Inclusion. Our current government ministries fall well short of this. Without a dedicated disability equity portfolio in government, we cannot wholeheartedly dismantle structural, physical and attitudinal barriers facing people with disability.

In the absence of a Department of Disability Equality and a Minister for Disability Inclusion, Pauline Hanson's ravings about the NDIS, and media scandalising of disability social supports, have not been effectively countered. These harmful attitudes are gaining traction amongst the voting public. This is what is meant when people say the NDIS is losing its "social license". Scapegoating a misunderstood minority, during uncertain enconomic times, is sadly a vote winner for the Orange forces. 

Labor has loudly pushed back against the insurgent One Nation party's racist policies, but has been less forthright in opposing Pauline Hanson's anti-disability rhetoric. Despite Senator Jordon Steele-John's forthright advocacy and Ali France's historic defeat of former Opposition leader Peter Dutton, we still don't have enough disability representation in our parliaments. We need more diversity in parliament so that our governments can more boldly make decisions that better serve disabled people.

We need more grass roots action, from disabled people and allies, to achieve social and political change. Some disabled people insist that they will only do advocacy if they are paid for it, because disabled people are often ripped off, being expected to provide advocacy services for free. Yes, this happens, but we need to ask - who paid the Suffragettes to win the vote for women? Who paid 6 year old Ruby Bridges to de-segregate a hostile whites-only school? There are no social gains without sacrifice. I would like to suggest that we do as much organising and educating as we feel fit and able to do, while still demanding payment from large, well-resourced organisations.

**According to the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, "The social model of disability says that people are disabled by barriers in society, such as buildings not having a ramp or accessible toilets, or people’s attitudes, like assuming people with disability can’t do certain things. The medical model of disability says people are disabled by their impairments or differences, and focuses on what is ‘wrong’ with the person, not what the person needs. The medical model of disability creates low expectations and leads to people losing independence, choice and control in their lives."