Life without Barriers quarterly breakfast speech
02/12/2011
Life Without Barriers speech – A look back on 2011
Veale Gardens
Thank you for having me here to speak to you today.
I’m really pleased to be involved with this event, which is run by an organisation that I have so much in common with. Life Without Barriers are tirelessly fighting for all the same things that I’m often talking about, and one of the great things about working in the disability sector is spending time with so many like-minded, passionate people.
Being that 2011 is winding down to an end, and it’s been a frantic and satisfying year in so many ways – I thought I’d take this opportunity to talk with you all about what I see as being some of the biggest changes that I’ve seen over the last twelve months. Hopefully I can shed some light on the political machinations which have affected various disability issues, without completely overwhelming you with bureaucracy.
So, to start I’d like to talk about one of the biggest issues I’ve tackled in the last year – and it’s something which I suspect will probably be one of the biggest issues I tackle in my life.
This is something which tests the very fundamentals of our society, and questions whether inclusivity of people with disabilities might mean a major shift not only in the way we do things, but also how we think about things.
I am talking about the issue of access to justice for people with disabilities.
Until I started working on this I would never have believed quite how discriminatory our justice system is. I originally started looking into problems with the justice system after two different groups contacted me, both appalled by how a loved one – allegedly victims of sexual abuse – had been cut out of the search for justice.
One of these cases has been well publicised by the media since, the other has not. But both cases are characterised by the indescribable pain and frustration felt by the alleged victims and their families, who feel like when the worst happened to them – our society completely failed to deliver justice.
You see, people with disabilities are being let down in all relevant areas to justice – be it protection from abuse, or rights-based education, or even the attitude of the judiciary.
So first, there is problems within the police system. Currently the frontline officer who deals with the alleged victim makes an assessment at their own discretion as to the vulnerability of the witness, and whether they would benefit from being referred to the Victim Management Unit. This unit consists of five officers who have undergone just one level of training above the average communication training which every officer is obliged to take. This extra level of training educates officers in the art of open ended questioning. Now, for some alleged victims, particularly those who are extremely traumatised and emotional, open ended questioning could be very helpful. But for people with some forms of disability – particularly intellectual disability, or people with limited capacity to speak – open ended questioning could potentially be more hindrance than help. For example, if you asked a person whose intellectual disability meant they only thought literally: ‘why are you here today?’, they might say ‘Because you told me I had to come’, ‘or ‘because someone brought me here’.
And again, a person with limited vocabulary may not be able to answer such abstract questions. And it would seem that this is where the road presently ends when it comes to police support for people with disabilities in the interview process. There is no onus on police to be trained specifically in communicating with people with disabilities, nor is there onus on them to employ someone who does have such training to assist the alleged victim.
I recently met with SAPOL in light of recent cases of alleged sexual abuse of very young children with communication disabilities, and I am sad to tell you all that the thing I find most disturbing is not the fact that the current police system is so deficient, but the fact that the police officers I met with genuinely seemed to believe the current system is fine.
It is logical that if a police officer is only able to gain a very limited statement from an alleged victim, whether it be due to disability or some other factor, their case is very unlikely to get before a court, let alone have a successful outcome.
However, even if a victim can overcome these barriers, and their case does get to court, there are further obstacles which people with a disability must face. The most glaring problem is a lack of genuine onus on a judge to offer supports which would aid a person with disability to give evidence. Yes, there are some clauses in the current Evidence Act, most relevantly Section 13, which attempt to make provisions for so-called ‘vulnerable’ witnesses. But it would seem that there is a problem with the subjective nature of the language used in these particular clauses. For Example, in Section 13 (1), the Evidence Act says a court should make special arrangements for the taking of evidence “if it is desirable”. Now what on earth does that mean? I might think it’s desirable to bungee jump, while you may have an entirely different opinion. Yet the level of support offered to victims of crime with disabilities hinges on this language.
The Saint Ann’s School case involving alleged sexual abuse of then students with severe and multiple disabilities in the 1990s first brought this shameful issue to the surface.
One of the groups which has come to me recently for help tells a story which echoes the St Ann’s tragedy. This recent case consists of about seven children with communication disabilities who were allegedly sexually abused by their school bus driver. Some of the charges against this man will be pursued, but many, including all of the charges pertaining to two particular children, have been dropped due to a lack of evidence, reportedly because the disabilities of these children might prevent cross-examination.
What does this tell us? Well, it shows us that since the St Ann’s case in the 1990s we have done nothing to change the situation, we have done nothing to make sure people with disabilities are better protected by our courts and our laws.
So – I’ve been working on this issue relentlessly this year, and we’re beginning to see some slow movement toward change. The Government has started public consultation on ways to change the Evidence Act so it offers more flexibility about ways people with disabilities can give evidence. The Government is also looking at more training for the police, and after much pressure extra protection measures on school buses and for other school services are being considered. I’ve also set up an inquiry so we can dig deeper into this issue and hear about the full range of discrimination.
It is little steps of progress, but it is heartening to see that maybe our society is beginning to accept that while a person with a disability might not be able to tell their story vocally, might not be able to be traditionally cross-examined – that they are still a reliable witness, and still deserving of justice.
This is a fundamental change, it requires a rethink of our traditional notions of “a fair go” in the justice system. But it’s a change I hope we can all believe in, because if we don’ t then people with disabilities will remain natural targets for predators. I think things are improving, but we must keep the pressure on.
So that’s one of the big things that has happened over the past year – another, of course is the NDIS.
The NDIS – or National Disability Insurance Scheme, offers an entirely different approach to disability service provision.
When you say it like that, it doesn’t sound that exciting, it sounds kind of bureaucratic – but I think a lot of us in this room know how much of a difference it could make to individual lives, so that’s definitely exciting.
An NDIS, is, broadly speaking a no fault insurance scheme that is akin to Medicare, so if you need services and you are eligible, you will get them, you won’t have to fight.
An NDIS, as it name suggests is a national scheme, which helps to ensure equity for all Australians and will stop the “postcode lottery” which has a tyranny over the current system.
As such, an NDIS provides a long term, lifetime approach that is careful and considered as opposed to Governments’ current ad-hoc approach which is driven by those who write the budget. An NDIS provides an equitable and individual focus on care and support needs which allows full participation in life by people with disabilities.
And the most amazing thing about an NDIS and this year? The Federal Government has actually committed to it!
August 10th this year was a bit of a surreal day for me. Since the Productivity Commission has first begun looking at the idea of an NDIS I, and all my disability sector colleagues have been like broken records: talking about how important this is, how revolutionary it could be, how politicians should open their hearts and their minds to the idea of doing something entirely different so that people with disabilities could have better lives.
We’d been banging on about that for months – and then in one fell swoop Julia Gillard came forward and shut us up.
On August 10 she announced that her Government would implement an NDIS, and she gave a detailed plan of how that will happen.
It was one of those rare times I was stuck for words – for only about ten seconds though, which was lucky because my phone soon began ringing off the hook with journalists wanting to hear a reaction.
I, of course, was delighted that the struggles of people with disabilities had finally been recognised by Government – and was even more delighted that there were planning to do something about it.
The downside? Well, according to the PM’s plan, the NDIS is still about 7 years away. And who knows exactly who will be running the country then? Maybe whoever it is won’t be so keen on improving the lives of people with disabilities.
So, we’ve got to keep the pressure on. Personally, I have been lobbying for the Government to implement the NDIS much faster – because I know there are people out there who can’t wait seven years. They won’t last that long, and if we’ve committed to this revolution, recognised that there are enormous problems, then how can we ethically delay the solution?
We can’t. So we need to make this issue an election issue – to ensure that not only does it get bi-partisan support, but also to see an NDIS become reality sooner. It’s a win for this year, but more work for next – but work I’m excited to do.
The NDIS actually relates to two of the other major issues which I have been working on this year. When I say relates, what I really mean is that if and when an NDIS is implemented, these two issues will hopefully no longer exist.
The first thing I’m talking about is unmet needs. Now, I say this is something I’ve been working on this year – but really it’s an issue which has been at the forefront of my mind the entire time I’ve been a politician.
Now – unmet needs is the Govt-speak name for the long list of services that the Government knows people with disabilities need, but that the Government is not giving them. It includes everything except equipment: accommodation, in-home personal support, community support, help with community access and respite care.
I find it strange that the Government makes a list of these things, only to ignore it. But that’s what they do.
The latest unmet needs data shows there are hundreds of South Australians with disabilities who are in critical need of services, but who are going without essentials.
But, what the neat table in the State Government’s latest report fails to show is the suffering of all the individuals who make up the numbers on this list. Each of these people go without something essential every day, and it profoundly affects their quality of life.
The most disturbing cases here are the ‘Category One’ numbers. These are people the Government says are at critical risk of homelessness or harm to themselves or others.
There are 886 instances where people in this situation are not provided with the necessary services. That is almost one thousand cases where the Government just can’t find the money to help individuals in horrific circumstances.
Unmet needs is, I think, an area where the concerns of Life Without Barriers very closely mirror my own. Speaking recently with the wonderful Sheena, who just introduced me, she mentioned her particular concerns about how high needs clients are often left without adequate funding for proper care. Obviously, Life Without Barriers has had the same direct experience as me, seeing people with disabilities getting by in circumstances which are unthinkable – and they are anxious that this changes.
While many of us working in the sector or advocating for the sector lament the real world impacts of what the Government calls the “unmet needs” list, the Government is busily talking about the wonderful new initiatives they are starting.
Recently in an unmet needs report, the Government wrote about a new initiative which would provide 25 extra supported accommodation places. This can only be described as woefully inadequate when the Government’s own report shows we need accommodation services for more than 1000 people.
The whole unmet needs scenario is strange and sad, and I have been persistent in my lobbying on it – making sure I mention it in every context possible from Parliament, to in the media, to in direct meetings with Government Ministers. This has mostly been to no avail, but the good news is that were a National Disability Insurance Scheme to take effect tomorrow, the unmet needs list would disappear.
So while we all might feel like the State Government has turned a deaf ear on this one, I am pleased to say that progress has been made – albeit indirectly.
Finally, I want to mention one more big ticket disability item from 2011, something which also has a relationship with the NDIS – but is a little more local.
This year, in October, after what felt like years of waiting the Social Inclusion Unit delivered its Blueprint for Reform of Disability Services. And although this document was a long time coming, it was very worthwhile – because the recommendations that the Social Inclusion Board made were excellent.
They made 34 very progressive, rights-based recommendations which, if taken up, would doubtless improve the lives of South Australians with a disability. Among some of my favourites was the recommendation that people with disabilities be given the dignity of self-managed funding, so they could chose what services they want and which service providers they want to deliver them.
Unsurprisingly, we’re yet to hear from the Government about whether they’ll be following through on these recommendations. But after I put some pressure on in Parliament this week, I did manage to extract a promise from Minister for Disabilities Ian Hunter that he will make an announcement about this within weeks.
If it’s a positive announcement, I think we can all have a Merry Christmas. If it’s a negative announcement, then that’s another job to add to next year’s list.
Of course, there’s other things which have happened this year, but we’d be here for another twelve months if I recounted them all – so that’s an overview of the major moments.
I’m looking forward to a few moments of rest, before tackling the great challenges which 2012 brings.
Thank you for your time today, and I hope you’ve enjoyed your breakfast!
