国家残疾保险计划审查进程：加强《残疾人权利公约》的弱点和机会

Q1 Arts and Humanities

Australian Journal of Human Rights Pub Date : 2022-09-02 DOI:10.1080/1323238x.2022.2139882

R. Thompson

{"title":"国家残疾保险计划审查进程：加强《残疾人权利公约》的弱点和机会","authors":"R. Thompson","doi":"10.1080/1323238x.2022.2139882","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n The National Disability Insurance Scheme (‘NDIS’) commenced in 2013 and is designed to give effect to Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006 (‘CRPD’). Criticism of the NDIS has been widespread since the rollout, raising questions regarding compliance with the CRPD. This article specifically examines the shortcomings of the review process that persons with disabilities may encounter when they disagree with a decision made by the National Disability Insurance Agency, the body administering the NDIS, relating to their funding. It highlights inconsistencies with the CRPD article 13 ‘Access to justice’, article 12 ‘Equal recognition before the law’ and article 9 ‘Accessibility’. The reader will gain a deeper knowledge of the human rights weaknesses of the NDIS review process and how this impacts persons with disabilities. Opportunities to enhance compliance with the CPRD and start restoring confidence in the NDIS for persons with disabilities will be identified.","PeriodicalId":37430,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Human Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The National Disability Insurance Scheme review process: weaknesses and opportunities to enhance the CRPD\",\"authors\":\"R. Thompson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1323238x.2022.2139882\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT\\n The National Disability Insurance Scheme (‘NDIS’) commenced in 2013 and is designed to give effect to Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006 (‘CRPD’). Criticism of the NDIS has been widespread since the rollout, raising questions regarding compliance with the CRPD. This article specifically examines the shortcomings of the review process that persons with disabilities may encounter when they disagree with a decision made by the National Disability Insurance Agency, the body administering the NDIS, relating to their funding. It highlights inconsistencies with the CRPD article 13 ‘Access to justice’, article 12 ‘Equal recognition before the law’ and article 9 ‘Accessibility’. The reader will gain a deeper knowledge of the human rights weaknesses of the NDIS review process and how this impacts persons with disabilities. Opportunities to enhance compliance with the CPRD and start restoring confidence in the NDIS for persons with disabilities will be identified.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37430,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Human Rights\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Human Rights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238x.2022.2139882\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238x.2022.2139882","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要国家残疾保险计划（“NDIS”）于2013年启动，旨在履行澳大利亚根据《2006年残疾人权利公约》承担的义务。自推出以来，对NDIS的批评一直很普遍，这引发了人们对遵守《残疾人权利公约》的质疑。这篇文章具体探讨了残疾人在不同意国家残疾保险局（NDIS的管理机构）就其资金做出的决定时可能遇到的审查过程中的缺陷。它强调了与《残疾人权利公约》第13条“诉诸司法”、第12条“法律面前的平等承认”和第9条“无障碍”的不一致之处。读者将更深入地了解NDIS审查过程中的人权弱点，以及这对残疾人的影响。将确定加强遵守CPRD的机会，并开始恢复残疾人对NDIS的信心。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

The National Disability Insurance Scheme review process: weaknesses and opportunities to enhance the CRPD

ABSTRACT The National Disability Insurance Scheme (‘NDIS’) commenced in 2013 and is designed to give effect to Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006 (‘CRPD’). Criticism of the NDIS has been widespread since the rollout, raising questions regarding compliance with the CRPD. This article specifically examines the shortcomings of the review process that persons with disabilities may encounter when they disagree with a decision made by the National Disability Insurance Agency, the body administering the NDIS, relating to their funding. It highlights inconsistencies with the CRPD article 13 ‘Access to justice’, article 12 ‘Equal recognition before the law’ and article 9 ‘Accessibility’. The reader will gain a deeper knowledge of the human rights weaknesses of the NDIS review process and how this impacts persons with disabilities. Opportunities to enhance compliance with the CPRD and start restoring confidence in the NDIS for persons with disabilities will be identified.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Australian Journal of Human Rights Arts and Humanities-History

CiteScore

1.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Australian Journal of Human Rights (AJHR) is Australia’s first peer reviewed journal devoted exclusively to human rights development in Australia, the Asia-Pacific region and internationally. The journal aims to raise awareness of human rights issues in Australia and the Asia-Pacific region by providing a forum for scholarship and discussion. The AJHR examines legal aspects of human rights, along with associated philosophical, historical, economic and political considerations, across a range of issues, including aboriginal ownership of land, racial discrimination and vilification, human rights in the criminal justice system, children’s rights, homelessness, immigration, asylum and detention, corporate accountability, disability standards and free speech.