Today the federal government released its response to 222 recommendations made in the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability final report.
Released back in the September last year, the recommendations called for the introduction of an Australian disability rights act, a new disability government portfolio, a minister for disability inclusion, and a department of disability equality and inclusion.
The commissioners recommended an independent national disability commission and major reforms to break down barriers to inclusive education, employment and safe housing. They were split on the need for “special schools” and the report didn’t address health, transport or day programs.
The government has fully accepted 13 of 172 recommendations under its primary or shared responsibility. It has accepted another 117 in principle and says it plans to implement these in some form. Others have been deferred for further consideration or noted. The establishment of a disability rights act will be considered alongside the final report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee into Australia’s Human Rights Framework, released in May.
Commonwealth investments include A$227.6 million to implement a new specialist disability employment program and $39.7 million for disability advocacy.
We asked five disability experts for their initial thoughts on the government’s long-awaited response. Here’s what they said.
Anne Kavanagh, health and disability expert
The government’s response to the disability royal commission’s recommendations is patchy. Key recommendations around segregation in education, employment and housing are not fully addressed.
The responses regarding health are limited to people with cognitive disability. This reflects the commission’s focus and largely includes initiatives that have already been funded.
And it misses an opportunity to close the gap in health between Australians with and without disability. It is time Australia had an overarching disability and health strategy and developed processes to review all health policies to ensure they are inclusive and don’t worsen disability-related health inequities.
While the government has reiterated its commitment to improving data on disability, monitoring and reporting, through the National Disability Data Asset, the design lies with government departments and statutory agencies. They do not have all the necessary skills. This will do nothing to improve government accountability, comprehensive monitoring and reporting, or evaluation of policies to assess what works and what doesn’t. “Rubbish in” will mean “rubbish out”. The $60 million already committed to the initiative will be wasted. Our future depends on investment in high quality and transparent data.
David Roy, education and inclusion expert
The government’s response to the royal commission’s education recommendations can be best described as safe. The need for clearer policies, clearer communication, better data, increased funding, and workforce training are accepted in principle. So too are many of the recommendations.
There is recognition of inappropriate exclusionary discipline (such as school expulsion or suspension) of children with a disability and the failure of current complaints management. These are areas already being tackled by state governments.
The controversial disagreement within the commission on the place of Schools for Specific Purpose is merely noted, with no commentary. This leaves systems, teachers and families with uncertainty. We still need research on how such settings impact education.
The silence of the government on equal access, enrolment, participation, and inclusive education further compounds uncertainty. There is no commentary on the exclusionary nature of standardised curriculum. This fails to address barriers to ensuring children with a disability meet the two goals of the Alice Springs (Mpartntwe) Education Declaration: to promote excellence and equity and for all Australians to be confident and creative lifelong learners.
Overall, a lacklustre response from a government that should be providing leadership and innovation.
George Taleporos, NDIS policy expert
I am deeply disappointed the disability royal commission response has not fully accepted the call to end segregation of people with disability in Australia, particularly to phase out group homes.
People with disability, through the royal commission, provided overwhelming evidence closed group settings deny people with disability autonomy and choice in their daily lives. This puts us at greater risk of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. Both the human cost and the economic cost of the grave harm occurring in these settings demands transition to more contemporary housing.
The commission heard 17,000 people with disability living in group homes are at significant risk. We need the government to rule out the deeply concerning 1:3 support worker ratio proposed by the NDIS review that would force more people into group homes.
The commission recommended separating the provision of housing from the provision of support services and the implementation of National Disability Insurance agency’s co-designed Home and Living Framework. We need the immediate adoption of these recommendations to improve the housing and living outcomes for people with disability.
All levels of government must take immediate action to end segregation in all forms and break the cycle of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation people with disability experience when they are forced into group homes.
Laura Davy, social policy expert
After engaging with the disability royal commission more than four years and a long wait, the disability community is expecting transformational change. They will be disappointed with many aspects of the government’s response.
There is no clear response on big ticket proposals from the commission yet. These included recommendation for a new disability rights charter, a new independent statutory body, the National Disability Commission, or a new government department and dedicated ministerial portfolio. These were central to proposals for how to deliver a safer, more inclusive society.
The government has not yet accepted the recommendation to develop a new National Disability Agreement, agreeing only in principle. Clarifying areas and levels of government responsibility is key to preventing people with disability falling through the cracks between services. The Commonwealth has committed to responding to this recommendation by the end of the year.
Disability organisations are likely to be disappointed in the government’s decision to accept only in principle recommendations to secure sustainable funding for advocacy programs, particularly given the work these organisations have put into government inquiries including the disability royal commission.
There will be disappointment too in the response to the recommendation to improve housing options and models available to National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participants. The government says it will consider this recommendation as part of NDIS review recommendations (which included problematic proposals for participants to share living supports), but does not give a timeline for a full response.
Sally Robinson, disability and community inclusion expert
Addressing and preventing violence and abuse is about positive action. We must respond to acts of violence and poor practice. But unless we actively promote the things we know to protect people from harm, we will not make headway in reducing the shockingly high rates of violence, abuse and neglect people with disability experience.
The federal government’s main commitments are clustered around safety, rights and anti-discrimination, inclusion and access, and employment. It seems the Commonwealth will rely on reviewing Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021–31 to deliver national change. If co-designed, this can keep the door open on how to progress change in some of the key areas which are still “subject to further consideration” in the government’s response.
Many will be disappointed to see this future consideration includes recommendations around housing and schooling, settings where people with disability experience high rates of violence and abuse.
Funding for independent advocacy is welcome and critical, especially for people who are unlikely to be able to participate in co-design. These are the people most likely to need preventative and protective measures.
Many of the government’s responses in inclusion and access will make improvements at a whole-population level. This shift responds to the evidence, targeting the drivers of violence and abuse, not the recipients of it. The responses include supporting grassroots efforts to break down stigma and improve community attitudes.
You can read our previous series here which unpacked the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability final report and recommendations for a more inclusive Australia.
Anne Kavanagh receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, and the Commonwealth government. She is a non-executive director of the naugural board of the National Disability Research Partnership (NDRP) and was co-Director of the Establishment Phase of the NDRP. She was a member of the Advisory Committee for the Pilot of the National Disability Data Asset and received funding as part of the pilot to contribute to two of the pilot cases studies.
George Taleporos is a Strategic Advisor at the Summer Foundation, Independent Chair of Every Australian Counts, Director of InLife, Director of Self Manager Hub and a member of the Independent Advisory Council for the NDIS.
Sally Robinson receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Federal and State governments for research. She conducted independent research for the Disability Royal Commission.
David Roy and Laura Davy do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
