Policy Briefing paper

I strongly suggest you refer back to the template for structure.

1... As the very first section should address the minister, you do not use the person's name,
only their ministerial title.

2..When writing out your proposal, it is important to be clear about what policy you are
proposing to change, use simple and concise language which allows you to clearly identify
which policy you are focusing on.

3..In the background, you are to outline the relevant social policy, define relevant key terms
and ensure to emphasise why change is necessary. In your discussion, you will focus on the
impact of policy change (or no change), ensuring to make good use of primary and secondary
resources, as well as anecdotal evidence to support your argument.

4...Finally, you will articulate your recommendations of how the changes can be
implemented. Please maintain this

Policy Briefing Paper 1|Page

National Disability Insurance Scheme Australia
This paper aims to elicit the attention of the federal minister of health of liberal government
towards disability discrimination and social exclusion faced by the indigenous community
and the progression required to fetch changes in the current procedures, evaluation, and
planning in the indigenous context.

Proposal
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the intersectional disputes between being a person
with a disability and holding an aboriginal identity. The Australian country continuously
noticed issues of social discrimination experienced by indigenous people from non-
indigenous society. The prevalence of disability in aboriginals is double in comparison to
non-indigenous people. The aboriginal community faces several barriers in accessing full
support given by the NDIS (Carson and Kerr 2017). The changes are required to be mentored
to deal with cultural competency and ethical barriers come in path.

Background
In the period of 2012-13 federal government set a budget of 1 billion dollars for the
establishment of the NDIS initial stage. The NDIS was launched in 2013 and provided
services to 10000 people with substantial disability problems in selected locations of the
country. The area of social policy delivering services to aboriginal individuals with a
disability is highly under researched. The aboriginal individual living with a disability had to
suffer a lot because of his identity which is a not case for a non-indigenous disabled person
(Horsell 2020). Average life expectancy, higher rates of chronic diseases, mental illness, and
homelessness are also associated with disability reported in indigenous Australians. The
major disadvantage faced by these people suffering from any disability is colonization,
culture loss, deprivation of country, illiteracy, poverty, inadequate resources, etc. In the year
2006, the Australian census reported that 36 % of disabled indigenous people live in major
cities, 18% in remote areas, and 46% in regional locations. Half of the indigenous people
over 15 years of age have a type of disability. The estimated count of Aboriginals in Australia
is 60000 having a profound and severe disability. About 45% of people above 15 years
experienced disability by the year 2014-15. Out of this, 7.7% required the support of core
activities to live with a disability. When it comes to wellbeing, socialization, and health,

Policy Briefing Paper 2|Page

indigenous people have to experience greater as far as inequality (Miller and Hayward 2017).
The highest ratio of disability service users in the indigenous community is 25% aged 15-14
years and 29% who are 25-44 years of age. Thus the median age of disability service users
among indigenous society is 25 years and in non-indigenous society is 34 years.
Currently, the Australian government offers around 2.3 billion dollars funding for the
disability sector, and state government provides about 4.7 billion dollars of funds i.e. in total
there is $7 billion initiated for the disability scheme. However, indigenous people with
disabilities have no certain assurance that they will receive suitable support and care over the
long run. The allocation might be good in one year but will insufficient in next year along
with a bundle of people left beside. Hence it can be concluded by the scenario that present
supports provided by the government for the indigenous community in the context of
disability are underfunded, inequitable, uneven, and insufficient. The social policy for
disability in Australia was limited until the 20th century. The NDIA has recognized the need
to ensure that aboriginals of the country having disabilities receive the full benefit of NDIS
policy. Constant efforts have been developed to enhance the NDIS presence for marginalized
groups including the aboriginal community. However, the productivity commission reported
that a lack of cultural knowledge becomes the substantial barriers for indigenous people in
accessing NDIS services or not having equal opportunity to receive these benefits (Bigby,
Tilbury and Hughes 2018). After this report, the NDIA launched its Torres Strait Islander and
Aboriginal Engagement Strategy. This strategy recognizes the necessity of enhancing the
evidence-based policy outcomes for the indigenous disabled people.

Discussion for change

The existing disability service is indefensible on multiple grounds and becoming unstable day
by day specifically for indigenous people. The NDIS policy shifts towards customized
funding for self-directed care to provide subsequent advantages to its participants. The
scheme targets to upsurge its capital and service accessibility both on a parallel scale. The
objective developed by the policymakers for the future is to support indigenous people with
significant and permanent disabilities in a sequential manner (Carson and Kerr 2017). The
scheme involves a shift from Australian public block funding services to a customized
service model. This model consists of packages of funding from a single pool that is allocated
only to eligible candidates based on the level of their need under a range of scheme
conditions. Changes in the scheme demands for involvement and actions across multiple

Policy Briefing Paper 3|Page

individual and organizational domains, evaluating the abilities of government, its mediators,
private and public service providers, societal partners, disabled person, and their support
system to course information and finding new ways of interaction. The scheme has been
inspected by researchers and policymakers along with legal authorities and the courts. The
research shows that NDIS has made countless progress in refining access to facilities and
backing to its participants equally, but has possible risks in the transition to complete the
application.
Gaps between the scheme’s potentials and partakers’ practices act to stem mainly from the
unpredictable elucidation of “necessary and reasonable support” and “choice and control” in
the care process and facility delivery. The option in the scheme is bounded by cost-benefit
evaluation and optional decision making as a part of the scheme care plan which leads to
breach of its promises of participants' choice and control (Thill, 2015). A review from 2017
based on the cost of the scheme inveterate that stepping into implementing alternate systems
will be an acute principle of the NDIS to ensure disabled people remain to be tuned by
mainstream network and the scheme is monetarily sustainable. However, changes in the
organization and funding of non-NDIS backing across authorities mean there is no nationally
consistent basis on which the scheme can involve with other networks. This trial is not
different from the scheme, but it has momentous consequences to bring into practice (Olney
and Dickinson 2019). The policy focuses on “mainstream interface” and costs flag review
discloses a need to monitor through service limits to achieve its objectives. NDIS’s low level
of public sector involvement has been also concerned about the action in understanding the
complications involved in the delivery of services at the visible line. A lasting challenge for
Australian state and federal governments is to clarify “who serves what” to disabled people
and maintaining stakeholder expectations with adequate availability of resources (Fawcett
and Plath 2014). Hence it is clear that potentials developed in the lead up to alter disability
amenities extend outside the possibility of the scheme.

Recommendations
 Sufficient funding is to be taken into account to support every single person with a
disability. The policymakers need to ensure that the funding must be used for eligible
candidates with a profound and severe disability.
 The significance of hearing the voices of indigenous participants and respecting their
identity and assuring them equal access to the scheme’s benefits has to be evaluated

Policy Briefing Paper 4|Page

 by the practitioners and every individual with a disability has to be listed for trials
under the scheme (Warr et.al. 2017).
 Training and education programs have to be conducted for the practitioners who are
responsible for the caring role and must have the proper understanding necessary to
withstand a protector's role

Policy Briefing Paper 5|Page

References
Horsell, C., 2020. Problematising disability: A critical policy analysis of the Australian
national disability insurance scheme. Australian Social Work, pp.1-13.

Carson, E. and Kerr, L., 2017. Australian social policy and the human services. Cambridge
University Press.

Fawcett, B. and Plath, D., 2014. A national disability insurance scheme: What social work
has to offer. British Journal of Social Work, 44(3), pp.747-762.

Thill, C., 2015. Listening for policy change: how the voices of disabled people shaped
Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme. Disability & Society, 30(1), pp.15-28.

Miller, P. and Hayward, D., 2017. Social policy ‘generosity’at a time of fiscal austerity: The
strange case of Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme. Critical Social
Policy, 37(1), pp.128-147.

Bigby, C., Tilbury, C. and Hughes, M., 2018. Social work research in the field of disability in
Australia: A scoping review. Australian Social Work, 71(1), pp.18-31.

Olney, S. and Dickinson, H., 2019. Australia's New National Disability Insurance Scheme:
Implications for Policy and Practice. Policy Design and Practice, 2(3), pp.275-290.

Warr, D., Dickinson, H., Olney, S., Hargrave, J., Karanikolas, A., Kasidis, V., Katsikis, G.,
Ozge, J., Peters, D., Wheeler, J. and Wilcox, M., 2017. Choice, control and the NDIS service
users’ perspectives on having choice and control in the new National Disability Insurance
Scheme. Melbourne: Melbourne Equity Insitute.

Policy Briefing Paper 6|Page