Disability rights: The Aus government missing in action.

The Australian Government has released their formal response to the Royal Commission into violence, abuse neglect, exploitation and discrimination against people with disability. And LinkedIn has been ablaze. Words like:

• Gutless
• Lacklustre
• Disappointing
• Underwhelming

The cynic in me views the 306-page response as a wonderful piece of advertising material for the Labour Government. It’s an ode to look at all the great things we have ‘proactively’ done to meet the recommendations for the Royal Commission. Everything else we are just going to keep kicking the can further down the road, but keep reminding you how committed we are.

This blog isn’t going to focus on the individual recommendations from the Commission and the Governments response. You can find that in the government summary. Instead it is going to focus on the process and the actions that have been committed to, whilst comparing to behavours that have been demonstrated (no I’m not a behaviour support prac).

 

The final report on the Disability Royal Commission was handed down in September last year. The Government was due to provide a response in March of this year, but delayed. They stated it was complex and they needed to do public consultation and complex issues required more detailed analysis. So 10 months later, they have developed a response based on public consultation that garnered 335 questionnaire responses and 118 written submissions. Assuming each of those was an individual and one entity hasn’t done multiple responses, they have received ‘public consultation from 0.01% of the population with disability. Or if we want to be more generous 4.5% of the number of people that shared their trauma with the commission.

 

Pages of the response document were spent rehashing budget allocations. $371 million has been allocated in the budget. But there is very little rigour around what that money will actually buy. For example the government as committed $12.3 million to improve national approaches to accessible information and communications, including Auslan. Yet the media briefing did not include an Auslan interpreter in the shot. Nor has the government insisted on putting in closed captions when televised or replayed. $12.3 million is a lot of money when the simple action of providing news about people with disability and for people with disability is overlooked.

We work with many mainstream organisations on how to improve disability inclusion. Our answer is you don’t have to throw a lot of money at it. Your small, but continuous gestures which reduce stigma and foster inclusion will be far better received that grand aspirations with no tangible improvements felt.

 

My key takeaways from reading this propaganda is:

• No risk profile model. There is a large focus on people identified as being at heightened risk of violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation, particularly those living in supported accommodation and channelling dollars and additional support to this group. But within the document the government has confirmed that they are yet to design a Risk Profile Model to better identify NDIS participants who may be at risk of harm and are likely to need comprehensive individualised response strategies. For example by 30 September 2025, this cohort of people at heightened risk are meant to have support coordination included in their NDIS plans, with sufficient funding to facilitate face-to-face contact at least monthly. How can you build this into a person’s plan, if you cant identify who the person is?
• The government has made a commitment to preventing conflicts of interest in support coordination, it reads as though the exception might be where there are thin markets. However they have also committed to the implementation of Navigators stating, “All governments are committed to working together to support the development of a nationally consistent health navigation framework, which will be coordinated and aligned to complement the reshaped disability navigation function of the NDIS and would include scoping of disability health navigation in partnership with state and territory governments”. So Support Coordinators and the people they support are still in the dark about what the future is likely to hold in that space
• A commitment to following through on the legal separation between SDA and SIL. They didn’t state if this would apply to ensuring ownership / directors couldn’t be the same across different companies.
• The jury is still out on a national disability support worker registration scheme, noting “The NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce will provide a report with advice and recommendations to Government in mid-2024”.
• There will be no pay rise under SCHADS, the government has instead deferred to a review by the independent Fair Work Commission to consider possible gender-based undervaluation in certain priority modern awards, including the SCHADS Award.
• Implementation of class or kind determinations to allow the commission to manage the volume of reportable incidents. This could be a big one for registered providers who diligently report their incidents. Historically, all reporting and investigating does put your neck on the chopping block. It would be nice to see some credit go to the organisations that are committed to investigating and making changes when things go wrong.
• The government stays commitment to the National Disability Data Asset but there is currently no commitment to fund it beyond 2025, suggesting this needs to be negotiated with states. This tells me that it will stay live but how useful or beneficial it will be, time will tell.
• We don’t need a Minister for Disability as “The Australian Government supports strong national leadership on disability policy and programs. The Government currently has two Cabinet positions with responsibility for national disability policies and programs: The Minister for Social Services and the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)”.
• Restrictive practices = bad. The government is committed to the reduction of restrictive practices but not understanding why they are used and how to safely address the root cause. Strengthening the evidence base on reducing and eliminating restrictive practices. They don’t want to conduct a longitudinal study, stating “would impose significant methodological challenges and may pose risks to study participants”, but then wants to establish targets and performance indicators. Once again, how can you develop reasonable targets and metrics without understanding and fixing the underlying drivers. This approach to me is riddled with risk for people at high risk of violence. Restrictive practices wont stop, but the recording of it might if there is incentive enough to do so.
• Supported / substitute decision making. Given how pivotal this is in ensuring human rights, I was shocked to find the government was fairly silent on this recommendation. Once again states they’re committed but no action or outcomes. It reads that they have this covered due to their commitment and recognising that substitute decision making is only a last resort. But anyone who has dealt with the Office of the public guardian will tell you that this has not been addressed.
• Group home reform was one of the contentious issues in the Commissions final report. And it has not gotten cleared. Instead, the government has committed $49.7 million for design and consultation to support better home and living options for NDIS participants. The measure includes targeted compliance activities and an education campaign to ensure Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) providers are aware of and meeting their existing conflict of interest obligations. Not to be negative, but we have been here before with the NDIA holding rounds of innovative housing models, but there is yet to be a tangible way that people can access alternative models or that service providers can fund. ILO is still being critically underutalised, my guess is because LACS and Planners don’t understand it. The continue focus on SDA providers is also alarming as this only applies to a cohort of people requiring home and living supports.

 

The report closes by stating

“All jurisdictions have agreed to the National Disability Royal Commission Monitoring and Reporting Framework (the Framework). The Framework outlines arrangements for governance and the ongoing monitoring of implementation progress of all reforms in response to the Royal Commission. A web page dedicated to reporting on the implementation of the Disability Royal Commission recommendations will be developed and managed by the Department of Social Services”.

Once again, this just seems like words on a page and not dedicated action. It has been 10 months. I have built (with tech support of course) a website in 10 hours…… This would have been a nice touch if it was ready to go. Or at the very least a time commitment for it being live. And lets not forget some of the background noise. Mr Shorten has attempted to push through new NDIS Legislation quickly and without a lot of consultation on the basis that this can come later. Yet the enactment of a Disability Rights act, is subject to further consideration. Stating “This will ensure a holistic approach is taken to ensuring the rights and freedoms of all Australians are respected and protected”. Should the same liberty not be awarded to the 600,000+ on the NDIS and the families and service providers that support them?

Words are cheap especially regarding disability rights.

But actions are real and there was very little concrete action which could be measured and reported on. This macro response provides very few decisions that allow us to predict the values and standards we are going to hold our government accountable to. I would love to see a supporting document that is focused on the next 12 months, and the micro actions. What specifically will be done to ensure that Australians with disability and their supporters are not just left with good intentions.

 

To read all our other blogs visit here.