media shame: Australian's dog-whistle reporting on NDIS

The Australian newspaper cited outdated information (see article) to dog-whistle right-wing discontent over the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The article, published 29/3/2014, cited the average cost for the first 3 months over subsequent (much more indicative) data from the first six months of the trials. As the article says, the average cost dropped to $40,000 per person in the second quarterly report. Even the later report of average cost per person is now 3 months out of date ... and the averages calculated only include 2/3 of the eligible NDIS clients assessed in the first 6 months of the trial.

In relation to the Australian's article, Every Australian Counts referred to Groundhog Day (see article) and an inability to move on.

The article lies. It refers to a "blowout" in NDIS costs but the NDIS quarterly reports show very little of the allocated funds have actually been spent. It is yet to be seen whether people with disability can actually spend allocated money on the services they need.

But prejudiced media never lets facts get in the way of a good dog-whistle.

The article ignores completely the issues that the existing timetable for the NDIS leaves most Australian citizens with a disability floundering in poverty (Australia has the worst disability poverty in the OECD - article here) for years more, without many essentials of living, under what the Government itself says is an entirely dysfunctional and inequitable disability services system.

The article bases some of its criticism of the NDIS on the Government hastily prepared sham report with its utterly "crap analogy" of an incomplete airplane taking off.

The dog-whistlers and disability bigots at the Australian do not offer any credible alternative to the NDIS. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they see people with a disability as lazy and indolent.

Sadly, the current Government gets way too much of its policy advice from sources like the media and big business ... and does not even ask for advice from public servants that the tax-payers fund to provide Government with much more complete and informed information and advice (see article).