Pearls and Irritations

I am not surprised by the disappointment felt by people with disability and their advocacy groups concerning what appears to be the Commonwealth Government’s limp-wristed and overly cautious response to the Disability Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability.

Restraining its response to only 172 of the 222 recommendations of the Commission does appear to be short-changing the disability community. The remaining 50 recommendations have been referred to State and Territory jurisdictions which, it is claimed, are their primary responsibility.

Media reactions have highlighted disappointments that there was not a more positive response to the closure of special schools and group homes, notwithstanding that the Commissioners were divided in their response to these propositions. It appears, too, that sheltered workshops (supported employment) will continue for the current 16,000 participants, most of whom have mild intellectual disability.

But is it all bad news?

The Government has accepted or accepted in principle 130 recommendations, are considering a further 36 recommendations, and note 6 recommendations, promising new money to assist in their achievement.

Much emphasis has been placed on the value of a human rights approach, including the articles and principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (UN CRPD) to help alleviate the negative attitudes and discrimination people with disabilities experience, but as I have argued elsewhere rights approaches are necessary but insufficient in redressing the indescribable acts of violence. Abuse, neglect and exploitation revealed by the 10,000 people with disabilities, their families, friends and carers who shared their experiences with the Commission.

When the NDIS commenced in 2013, other than providing a core financial contribution, the States and Territories almost completely abandoned their disability support systems, despite the NDIS only supporting people with high support needs. Given the cost overruns of the scheme, Minister Shorten is consulting States and Territories to urge an upgrade of their support in areas such as early education and schools to help reduce the impact of impairments, especially those with an early diagnosis of autism and other developmental disabilities.

The relationships between State/Territory jurisdictions and the Commonwealth Government on disability matters is a veritable miasma of ideas and false assumptions about how people with disabilities should be supported to live a satisfying life like the rest of us.

Given that the impetus for the scheme was a product of the Productivity Commission, an economically focused body, which led to the NDIS becoming an insurance-based initiative, it is little wonder that economic issues are now overshadowing the debates concerning the future of the NDIS. Its implementation has been shanghaied by the neoliberal and marketisation philosophies and policies which now underpin it. Dr Bob Davidson in his chapter Neoliberalism and human services: The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) has graphically exposed the tragic effects of this upon human services generally and the NDIS.

Little wonder then that international agencies are commencing to tout for a stake in the NDIS as they have done in prisons, hospitals, and detention centres for “illegal” immigrants. The Government’s suggestion for a tiered registration of providers may strengthen the quality of services provided, but privatisation remains alive in many other government services.

Tragically, smaller not-for-profit support agencies with a long history in disability support have been forced to merge with mega support organisations because the NDIS financial arrangements have sent them to the wall. This results in Boards of Directors and senior executive staff becoming far removed from the communities the smaller agencies once supported. This is especially apparent in regional communities.

To return to the Government’s response to the Royal Commission it is apparent that these underlying philosophical and policy issues have not been addressed. In many ways it is a flawed system, not unlike The Productivity Commission highlighted in its observation about the state and territory-run support systems it examined in its 2011 Report.

Its observations then that, “The current disability support system is underfunded, unfair, fragmented, and inefficient, and gives people with a disability little choice and no certainty of access to appropriate supports. The stresses on the system are growing, with rising costs for all governments”, surely ring true for some aspects of the current system.

Regarding special schools, and as a pioneer special educator in the 1960s/70s, I have a very clear picture of the challenges faced by schools and families. The process of integration or the current term inclusion has been much easier for students with visual, hearing and physical impairments and to some extent those with mild intellectual disabilities.

However, the challenges faced by those with severe cognitive impairments requiring support with speech and language, feeding, toileting and severe behavioural needs have led to most of the existing special schools in the country catering for these students. These schools are providing excellent support which given the present structure of schools would appear nigh impossible within regular school systems.

For those in this population who need 24-hour support in out-of-home care, the group home model has been the option since the deinstitutionalisation era of the 1960s and for some until the present day. Yes, there are examples of group home conditions not too dissimilar to the institutional life they replaced. However, it is not always the building option that is a factor in violence, abuse, and neglect; it is the quality of the support, which is provided, irrespective of location.

Yes, segregation is a factor impeding growth of recognition and respect for people with disabilities, but mere presence in a normal community does not necessarily lead to better attitudes and genuine engagement. Most of the students in the special school where I was Principal had been rejected from regular primary and secondary schools. My challenge was to help them regain their identity and self-worth in an accepting environment. This is the real challenge for inclusive schooling.

Turning to the immense challenges being faced by people with a disability in obtaining employment and a life-long career, the Government’s initiative in the establishment of a Disability Employment Centre of Excellence is laudable, but for those with intellectual disabilities there is already abundant evidence from research and a few excellent programs with over 40 years successful experience, to show that with the right support and training this population can successful work in open employment and receive fair award wages.

The Government has again surrendered to the lobbying by those running the Australian Disability Enterprises (sheltered workshops) to maintain them as an option for the 16,000 employees currently supported. These facilities have consistently resisted change for the past 50 years. A ten-year applied research program (1976-86), sponsored by the Commonwealth Government, provided unequivocal evidence that people with mild intellectual disabilities were able to work in open employment. The 1986 Disability Services Act failed in its attempt to close sheltered workshops, again opposed by a strong provider lobby.

I despair that the Government’s responses do not sufficiently recognise that one of the underlying challenges we face is the lack of training for support workers and educators. There is no opportunity within the NDIS structure to support in-house training.

The marketisation mantra has shifted this responsibility to training resources such as TAFE where jurisdictions have gutted what were excellent programs. Some universities have weakened or closed special/inclusive education training.

Casualisation of both support workers, and in some jurisdictions the casualisation of teachers, has impeded career growth and retention of an experienced support network which was a feature of former systems.

The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission must also be given investigative powers to ensure it is able to weed out dodgy providers before abuse and neglect occur.

History reveals that violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disabilities has been a feature of society for millennia. Governments do have a responsibility to safeguard the lives of vulnerable people. But equally, the community generally must also take responsibility for its negativism toward people who sometimes appear different. It behoves all of us to respect the basic humanity and dignity of all. Royal Commissions are only a part of the answer.

Share and Enjoy !

SHARE TWEET SHARE COPY EMAIL PRINT