The Duplicity of Choice and Empowerment: Disability Rights Diluted in Australia’s Policies on Assistive Technology
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background
3. Methods
4. Findings
4.1. The NDIS Act 2013
4.2. Assistive Technology in the NDIS
4.3. Operational Guideline—Planning and Assessment—Supports in the Plan—Assistive Technology, 2014
4.4. Assistive Technology Discussion Paper, 2014
4.5. Assistive Technology Strategy, 2015
5. Discussion
5.1. The Economics and Politics of Choice in Public Policy
The design of full scheme operations and AT guidelines will need to balance the need for participants to be afforded the dignity of risk-taking and decision-making autonomy with policies, processes and systems that protect Scheme sustainability in a rapidly evolving technology market. (p. 16)
5.2. Loss of the Assumption of Capacity
- (1)
- Participants have access to all the information they require to identify AT options and explore the ‘fit-for-purpose’, relevance and utility of potential technology solutions;
- (2)
- The range of AT options to explore and choose from is broad enough to offer real choice and ensure quality, informed by direct engagement with, and input from, people with disability; (p. 10)
5.3. Collectivism for Economic Efficiency Rather Than Self-Determination
The fundamental principle applied in determining the appropriate role for NDIA in sourcing and procurement was that it should deliver outcomes that are as good, or better than, what could be achieved otherwise, and also deliver net financial benefits for the scheme (and ultimately taxpayers). (p. 17)
First, for all centrally sourced AT parcels, the recommended approach will enhance participants’ ability to choose products that meet their needs by offering an appropriate range of pre-tested products from a tender or panel, based on merit (superior quality, competitive price). (p. 20)
5.4. Devolved Responsibility for Policy Implementation
6. Conclusions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wilberforce, M.; Glendinning, C.; Challis, D.; Fernandez, J.L.; Jacobs, S.; Jones, K.; Knapp, M.; Manthorpe, J.; Moran, N.; Netten, A. Implementing consumer choice in long-term care: The impact of individual budgets on social care providers in England. Soc. Policy Adm. 2011, 45, 593–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baxter, K.; Glendinning, C. The role of emotions in the process of making choices about welfare services: The experiences of disabled people in England. Soc. Policy Soc. 2013, 12, 439–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vrangbaek, K.; Robertson, R.; Winblad, U.; Van de Bovenkamp, H.; Dixon, A. Choice policies in Northern European health systems. Health Econ. Policy Law 2012, 7, 47–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greener, I. Choice and voice—A review. Soc. Policy Soc. 2008, 7, 255–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maceachen, E.; Kosny, A.; Ferrier, S.; Lippel, K.; Neilson, C.; Franche, R.L.; Pugliese, D. The ideal of consumer choice in social services: Challenges with implementation in an Ontario injured worker vocational retraining programme. Disabil. Rehabil. 2013, 35, 2171–2179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Mladenov, T.; Owens, J.; Cribb, A. Personalisation in disability services and healthcare: A critical comparative analysis. Crit. Soc. Policy 2015, 35, 307–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steel, E.J. The right choice? An interpretive policy analysis of assistive technology in Australian disability services. PhD thesis, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Island, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Oxford English Dictionary “Choice, N.”. Available online: www.oed.com/view/Entry/32111?rskey=KPDDuM&result=1#eid (accessed on 8 January 2019).
- Curryer, B.; Stancliffe, R.J.; Dew, A. Self-determination: Adults with intellectual disability and their family. J. Intellect. Develop. Disabil. 2015, 40, 394–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mladenov, T. Neoliberalism, postsocialism, disability. Disabil. Soc. 2015, 30, 445–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Soldatic, K.; Chapman, A. Surviving the assault? The Australian disability movement and the neoliberal workfare state. Soc. Mov. Stud. 2010, 9, 139–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foster, M.M.; Henman, P.; Fleming, J.; Tilse, C.; Harrington, R. The politics of entitlement and personalisation: Perspectives on a proposed national disability long-term care and support scheme in Australia. Soc. Policy Soc. 2012, 11, 331–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purcal, C.; Fisher, K.R.; Laragy, C. Analysing choice in Australian individual funding disability policies. Austr.J. Public Adm. 2014, 73, 88–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDonald, C.; Chenoweth, L. (Re) Shaping social work: An Australian case study. Br. J. Soc. Work 2009, 39, 144–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiesel, I.; Fincher, R. The choice agenda in disability housing provision. Hous. Stud. 2009, 24, 611–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National People with Disabilities and Carers Council. Shut Out: The Experience of People With Disabilities and Their Families in Australia—National Disability Strategy Consultation Report; Commonwealth Government: Canberra, Australia, 2009.
- Buckmaster, L. The National Disability Insurance Scheme: A Quick Guide; Parliamentary Library: Canberra, Australia, 2017.
- Clarke, J.; Newman, J.; Westmarland, L. The antagonisms of choice: New labour and the reform of public services. Soc. Policy Soc. 2008, 7, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coulter, A.; Le Maistre, N.; Henderson, L. Patients’ Experience of Choosing Where to Undergo Surgical Treatment; Picker Institute: Oxford, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Coulter, A. Do patients want a choice and does it work? BMJ 2010, 341, c4989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lopez, K.A.; Willis, D.G. Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: Their contributions to nursing knowledge. Qual. Health Res. 2004, 14, 726–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Yanow, D. Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Disability Insurance Agency. Assistive Technology Strategy. Available online: www.ndis.gov.au/html/sites/default/files/AT-Paper_0.pdf (accessed on 8 January 2019).
- National Disability Insurance Agency. Operational Guideline—Planning and Assessment—Supports in the Plan —Assistive Technology v1.0; National Disability Insurance Agency: Canberra, Australia, 2014.
- Summers, M.P.; Walker, L. National Credentialing and Accreditation for Assistive Technology Practitioners and Suppliers An Options Paper; Assistive Technology Suppliers: Sydney, Australia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- National Disability Insurance Agency. Including Specific Types of Supports in Plans. Available online: www.ndis.gov.au/Operational-Guideline/including-1.html (accessed on 17 November 2015).
- National Disability Insurance Agency. Towards Solutions for Assistive Technology; National Disability Insurance Agency: Canberra, Australia, 2014.
- Thomas, J.; Barraket, J.; Ewing, S.; MacDonald, T.; Mundell, M.; Tucker, J. Measuring Australia’s digital divide: The Australian Digital Inclusion Index 2016; Swinburne University of Technology: Hawthorn, Australia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Australian Law Reform Commission. Equality, Capacity and Disability in Commonwealth Laws; Report 124; ALRC: Sydney, Australia, August 2014.
- Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. General Comment No.1 (2014) Article 12: Equal Recognition Before the Law; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Cukalevski, E. Supporting choice and control—An analysis of the approach taken to legal capacity in Australia’s national disability insurance scheme. Laws 2019, 8, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wessels, R.D.; Dijcks, B.; Soede, M.; Gelderblom, G.J.; De Witte, L.P. Non-use of provided assistive technology devices, a literature overview. Technol. Disabil. 2003, 15, 231–238. [Google Scholar]
- Cook, A.M. Ethical issues related to the use/non-use of assistive technologies. Develop. Disabil. Bull. 2009, 37, 127–152. [Google Scholar]
- Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of Australia, Adopted by the Committee at its 10th Session; UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD): New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Queensland Competition Authority. Draft Report: Medical and Disability Aids and Equipment Price Disparities; Queensland Competition Authority: Brisbane, Australia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Summers, M.P.; Verikios, G. Assistive technology pricing in Australia: Is it efficient and equitable? Austr. Health Rev. 2018, 42, 100–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strong, G.; Jutai, J.W.; Plotkin, A.; Bevers, P. Competitive enablement: A consumer-oriented approach to device selection in device-assisted vision rehabilitation. In Assistive Technology Research Series, Aging, Disability and Independence; Mann, W.C., Ed.; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008; Volume 22, pp. 175–195. [Google Scholar]
- Australian Human Rights Commission. Right to Self Determination; Australian Human Rights Commission: Sydney, Australia, 2013.
- Steel, E.J. The Role of Choice in Assistive Technology Provision in Europe. In Everyday Technology for Independence and Care; Gelderblom, G.J., Soede, M., Adriaens, L., Miesenberger, K., Eds.; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; Volume 29, pp. 1225–1232. [Google Scholar]
- Alghrani, A.; Case, P.; Fanning, J. Editorial: The mental capacity act 2005—Ten years on. Med. Law Rev. 2016, 24, 311–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peckham, S.; Mays, N.; Hughes, D.; Sanderson, M.; Allen, P.; Prior, L.; Entwistle, V.; Thompson, A.; Davies, H. Devolution and patient choice: Policy rhetoric versus experience in practice. Soc. Policy Adm. 2012, 46, 199–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarke, J.; Smith, N.; Vidler, E. The indeterminacy of choice: Political, policy and organisational implications. Soc. Policy Soc. 2006, 5, 327–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jordan, B. Public services and the service economy: Individualism and the choice agenda. J. Soc. Policy 2006, 35, 143–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bigby, C.; Webber, R.; Bowers, B. Sibling roles in the lives of older group home residents with intellectual disability: Working with staff to safeguard wellbeing. Austr. Soc. Work 2015, 68, 453–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fotaki, M.; Roland, M.; Boyd, A.; McDonald, R.; Scheaff, R.; Smith, L. What benefits will choice bring to patients? Literature review and assessment of implications. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 2008, 13, 178–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomson, S.; Dixon, A. Choices in health care: The European experience. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 2006, 11, 167–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imrie, R. Rethinking the relationships between disability, rehabilitation, and society. Disabil. Rehabil. 1997, 19, 263–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clear, M. Promises, Promises: Disability and Terms of Inclusion; Clear, M., Ed.; Federation Press: Leichhardt, Australia, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Smart, B. Foucault, Marxism, and Critique; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Ball, S.J.; Davies, J.; David, M.; Reay, D. ‘Classification’ and ‘Judgement’: Social class and the ‘cognitive structures’ of choice of higher education. Br. J. Sociol. Education 2002, 23, 51–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Steel, E.J. The Duplicity of Choice and Empowerment: Disability Rights Diluted in Australia’s Policies on Assistive Technology. Societies 2019, 9, 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc9020039
Steel EJ. The Duplicity of Choice and Empowerment: Disability Rights Diluted in Australia’s Policies on Assistive Technology. Societies. 2019; 9(2):39. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc9020039
Chicago/Turabian StyleSteel, Emily J. 2019. "The Duplicity of Choice and Empowerment: Disability Rights Diluted in Australia’s Policies on Assistive Technology" Societies 9, no. 2: 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc9020039