Month: June 2014

A Matter of Public Importance in Parliament

On Wednesday, 18 June Senator Lisa Singh (Tasmania) spoke in the Senate on a Matter Of Public Importance. This is what Senator Singh said:

“He (Graeme Innes) works tirelessly to advocate on behalf of people living with a disability, which accounts for 39 per cent of the Australian Human Rights Commission’s caseloads – the largest component of the commission’s work, which continues to increase each year – yet soon his role will no longer exist.

“Graeme Innes has been the Disability Discrimination Commissioner since 2005 and, as well as undertaking roles as the Human Rights Commissioner and Race Discrimination Commissioner during his tenure, he has been the full-time Disability Discrimination Commissioner since 2011. In that time, he has been an advocate for individuals and communities affected by discrimination, engaged Australians in a national conversation about human rights and worked with the public service and the private sector to break down barriers to people with a disability.

“At budget estimates, he told me that he spends at least 60 hours on average each week working in his field – no wonder, when you consider that complaints on the grounds of disability account for about double the next highest category; at about 39 per cent of the work of the Australian Human Rights Commission. Mr Innes believes that complaint levels that high indicate the level of issues and concerns the disability sector faces. Along with helping manage this enormous caseload, Mr Innes has also been an integral part of shaping the new National Disability Insurance Scheme.

“The position of Disability Discrimination Commissioner was established in 1993. For more than 20 years, commissioners have been at the forefront of securing access to work, education, premises and services for people with disabilities. But the fight for the rights of Australians with disability is set to become a group effort after changes announced in the Abbott government’s first budget. It was revealed that each commissioner has agreed to take a share of the disability workload as it relates to their existing portfolios-as it is the only choice they have under this budget constraint. So, in addition to their current full-time workloads, each commissioner will take a slice of the 39 per cent of the Australian Human Rights Commission’s caseload.

“It remains to be seen how they will juggle already full-time roles alongside disability discrimination responsibilities-an additional 60 hours a week, the current workload of the Disability Discrimination Commissioner-without compromising the current quality of their own work. The promised appointment of a spokesperson with a lived experience of disability at a downgraded level from commissioner does little to compensate for the loss of Mr Innes in that role. The commission has been dealt a devastating hand and is making a genuine effort to deal with this blow; however, integrating this role should never have been an option.

“As the NDIS rolls out across the country, it is more important than ever for there to be a federal advocate devoted to those the scheme is assisting. Equally, people forced over and over again to go through reassessment for their disability support pension as a result of the budget deserve to have a commissioner looking out for their rights.

The last time the Abbott government altered the arrangements for commissioners, the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, gave the new commissioner a courtesy call ahead of the announcement. Mr Innes has been in contact with Senator Brandis’s office and the department since the start of this year trying to discover the fate of his position, but the very first Mr Innes heard that his contract was not going to be renewed was actually on budget night. Buried in the budget papers is a line that callously notes that the dismissal of the Disability Discrimination Commissioner ‘will achieve efficiencies within the Human Rights Commission’. Mr Innes is entitled to be a little angry, I would think, but he is surprisingly philosophical about things. As he noted at estimates:

‘The first that I knew about this issue was when I read it in the budget papers. That was a bit surprising to me because it has been the normal practice in my experience at the commission for there to be discussions when these things are going to occur. I had been contacting the minister’s office and the department for the past three or four months, for several reasons. Firstly, obviously I was interested to know what plans I should be making or whether there was any consideration of the possibility of reappointment. Secondly, and more significantly, the previous appointment process, in my view, put the commission at significant risk of losing its A status under the Paris principles, because there was not an open appointment process and I was keen to encourage the department and the minister to appoint a disability discrimination commissioner through an applications process – which has been the practice-and through an open process because I was concerned, from the commission’s point of view, about the risk to our A status. So I was not provided with the opportunity to have those discussions and, as I say, the first I knew that the position was to be downgraded was when I read it on the night of the budget in the budget papers.’

“That is the way that Mr Innes found out about the downgrading of his position – his position as a full-time Disability Discrimination Commissioner. That is no way to treat this Disability Discrimination Commissioner, who has been in his role since 2005. It is absolutely disgraceful.

“We know, of course, that the terms for individual commissioners are set in statute and Mr Innes understands that it is the prerogative of the Attorney-General to appoint commissioners by whatever process, or lack thereof, that he chooses; even if it contradicts the Paris Principles of an open application process. With characteristic vigour, however, Mr Innes has prosecuted the case for a full-time Disability Discrimination Commissioner and has spoken out against the downgrading of his role. As Mr Innes described in Senate budget estimates, people living with a disability in Australia continue to be disadvantaged. He said:

‘I have done major work in the last 12 months on access to justice-achieving, if you like, freedom of speech and equal access to the justice system for people with disabilities, where we are over-represented both as victims and as offenders and alleged offenders. We get half the educational outcomes: 25 per cent of people with disabilities achieve year 12 and 50 per cent of the general population achieve year 12. Also, 45 per cent of us live in poverty.’

“Forty-five per cent of people with disabilities continue to live in poverty, yet the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, is taking away the person that can advocate for and represent them.

“Ahead of what the Abbott government had always foreshadowed was going a tight budget, Senator Brandis made the curious decision to add a commissioner while at the same time taking away more than $1.5 million of funding from the Australian Human Rights Commission’s budget. Clearly the Abbott government’s decision to appoint Tim Wilson as the freedom commissioner has come at the expense of Australia’s first full-time Disability Discrimination Commissioner. Clearly the Abbott government has prioritised freedom commissioner over having a Disability Discrimination Commissioner.

“The issues faced by the disability sector are complex and multifaceted. Disability transforms the perspective of those it affects-a point that Mr Innes made to the estimates committee when arguing for a full-time commissioner. But we know that when a former fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs, and a personal friend of Senator Brandis, Tim Wilson, became the freedom commissioner in February, it hit the Australian Human Rights Commission’s budget by around $700,000. Something had to give, obviously. To cope with the new budgetary constraints, the commission will be forced to relegate the disability discrimination role to a part-time role or a shared responsibility. I think it is absolutely shameful that there will no longer be a full-time Disability Discrimination Commissioner when I have outlined the weight of the caseload that the commission faces and the issues facing the disability sector in Australia. So many Australians living with a disability will no longer have a full-time advocate.

“During budget estimates Mr Innes described some of the issues that he dealt with as Disability Discrimination Commissioner. I quote:

‘I have dealt with issues of concern in Brisbane, where audible traffic signals are turned off at night; so there is effectively a curfew for people who are blind or who have low vision. I have dealt with a range of issues arising from the budget, both positive and negative. The roll out of the National Disability Insurance Scheme: I have been very involved in its development and roll out and the benefits that that will bring for people with disabilities; the impact of the budget in a range of other areas; the disproportionate impact of any medical co-payments on people with disability-related illnesses; the disadvantage for people on the disability support pension who are being assessed again when they have already been assessed for that; for people under 35; the problems with regard to employment for people with disabilities, where we work at a rate 30 per cent lower than the general population.

‘This is a significantly disadvantaged sector and I am dealing with issues that relate to that every day that I am in this role… I do not suggest for a minute that my colleagues and staff at the commission will not continue to work very effectively in this role, but that will be a significant disadvantage to them and to the disability sector in Australia.’

“That makes the impact of Senator Brandis’ decision, the Abbott government’s decision-reducing the commission’s budget and no longer having a full-time Disability Discrimination Commissioner-fairly clear.

“I particularly want to draw on impact that Graeme Innes has had in his role. He has had such an impact in our Australian community in dealing with issues to do with disability from his own personal experience. I think he summed it up very well during budget estimates when he said:

‘I think there is little doubt in my mind, having been a commissioner for some eight years, and in the mind of the disability sector, that the disability sector is significantly advantaged by having a full-time disability discrimination commissioner with lived experience of disability and with knowledge of the disability sector. My lived experience of disability goes through all of my life. My experience in the disability sector started in my 20s, so I bring to the role 30 or 40 years’ experience. Whilst all of my colleagues at the commission are skilled and I have a lot of regard for them, none of them would be able to bring that experience to the role and, in my view, that would be a significant downgrading of the position.’

“I stand in support of the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, who has asked Prime Minister Tony Abbott to reinstate the Disability Discrimination Commissioner as a full-time role. What Australians with a disability have had for all of these years is someone who understands too well the challenges they face, who has empathy for their difficulties. What they need for the future is a full-time commissioner who can imagine an Australia without barriers for people who are born with or acquire a disability.

“Mr Graeme Innes was that man and will leave a lasting legacy. He has been an extremely powerful advocate for people with disability, working hard every day to ensure that people with disability have access to the same rights and opportunities as all Australians. That is the kind of society that we should want for all people, and that is the role that Mr Innes has been able to provide. Labor thanks Graeme Innes for the remarkable work that he has done at the Australian Human Rights Commission over the last decade on disability rights. He is leaving a lasting legacy. It is just such a shame that Senator Brandis is so short-sighted and is doing this terrible injustice for people in the disability community.” (end of quote).

 

Passing on the Baton

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.” (Margaret Mead. Used with permission)

Before leaving my position as Disability Discrimination Commissioner, I wanted to make an ongoing contribution to leadership in the disability sector in Australia. Planning for succession is one of the most important things we all have to do if we want a sector or movement to be sustainable.

I wanted to enhance the skills of young people with disabilities so that they would be better leaders in the future.

The Commonwealth Government has, for a number of years, provided a fund which the Australian Human Rights Commission administers, to enhance skills and knowledge in the disability sector by sending organisational representatives to international conferences relating to the Disability Convention or other similar activities. Normally we have received applications (usually from organisations in the sector sending their senior representatives) and determined which ones to support. Last year we significantly funded the NGO representatives at Australia’s appearance before the Disability Convention Expert Committee to assess Australia’s progress on compliance with the Convention.

This year, we decided to support a delegation of young Australians with disabilities to attend the Conference of States Parties, which is the annual UN meeting at which progress to implement the Convention is discussed. We contributed close to $50’000 from the Commonwealth fund to send six delegates with disabilities under the age of thirty. We also sent two mentors-
Rosemary Kayess and Therese Sands- who last year led the Australian NGO delegation during Australia’s appearance before the expert committee.

Further funds were contributed by the Melbourne Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation and the Ian Potter Foundation, as well as other disability organisations including My Place (WA) Pty Ltd, National Council on Intellectual Disability and Women With Disabilities Australia.

We conducted a preparatory workshop for the delegates at which we had senior leaders from the disability field participate. These included Professor Ron McCallum, the outgoing chair of the committee for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Maryanne Diamond, the Immediate Past President of the World Blind Union and the upcoming Chair of the International Disability Alliance, Colin Allen, President, World Federation of the Deaf and Samantha French Advocacy Projects Manager, People with Disability Australia.

Here are the delegates at that workshop, telling their stories, and what they hoped to learn.

The results were amazing. Here are their daily reports and other social media contributions.

This delegation was a glowing confirmation of the strength of our future leadership, and the importance of enhancing its development. I’m very pleased that the Commission did this.

Equal Before The Law

Australians who need communications supports, or who have complex and multiple support needs, are not having their rights protected, and are not being treated equally, in the criminal justice system. This must change.

Hence the work of the Australian Human Rights Commission in our report “Equal before the law: towards disability justice strategies”, launched in February. http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/equal-law Negative assumptions and attitudes, coupled with a lack of support services often means that people with disabilities are viewed as not credible, not capable of giving evidence or unable to participate in legal proceedings. As a result many are left without effective access to justice.
Since the release of the Commission’s report a number of state and territory governments have acknowledged our findings, and are considering how they might develop Disability Justice Strategies.

Last year we identified five key barriers for people with disabilities. We heard from victims, witnesses, those accused of crime and offenders.

The first barrier concerns programmes, assistance and other community supports addressing violence, prevention and disadvantage, which may not be readily accessible to those with disabilities. One submission told of Sarah, an Aboriginal woman with cognitive impairment, psychosocial disability and health conditions. Sarah began a long pattern of contact with criminal justice and human service agencies at age 12. What became obvious was that there is a lack of appropriate support outside the criminal justice system, and responsibility for addressing her needs was often left to the police and the juvenile justice system. At 18, she was provided with 24 hour supported accommodation through a Community Justice Program. If Sarah had had access to community assistance from an earlier age, she would not have had such continual interaction with the criminal justice system?

Police services are often the fall back position in times of crisis, rather than appropriate community and health services. One submission said ‘The police have become the emergency mental health response … for many individuals and families, and they are ill-equipped for the job.”

The second barrier dealt with the supports people may need, to participate in the criminal justice process. Maria, for example, has cerebral palsy and little speech. She wanted to tell police about a sexual assault, but there was no communication support worker to help with the statement. The police relied on Maria’s parents. Maria was uncomfortable giving personal details in front of her parents, so her evidence was incomplete. This caused problems for the investigation, and during the court process.

Barrier three concerns negative attitudes and assumptions about people with disabilities, which often result in us being viewed as unreliable, not credible or not capable of giving evidence, making legal decisions or participating in legal proceedings. we were told that “When I attended the police station, the police officer thought I was dumb at first, and he didn’t take it seriously.”

We were also told ‘a victim won’t even get their day in court, as the DPP won’t run the case.’

The fourth barrier deals with accommodation and programmes for people deemed ‘unfit to plead’. These people are often detained indefinitely in prisons or psychiatric facilities, without being convicted of a crime. The well-known case of West Australian Marlon Noble demonstrates this. It is one of the Commission’s Twenty Years: Twenty Stories films http://www.humanrights.gov.au/twentystories/video-presumed-innocent.html The last barrier concerns prisoners. Supports and adjustments may not be provided to prisoners with disabilities so that they can meet basic human needs, and participate in prison life. This can result in delays and difficulties exiting prison, or exiting with successful chances of re-integration.

Henry has an acquired brain injury. He wanted to apply for support from Legal Aid to appeal his conviction, and needed help to fill in forms. He found the language complex and difficult to understand. He did not receive assistance in prison to fill out the forms, and filled them out incorrectly. This delayed his application. By the time he filled out the forms correctly, his application was outside the time limit.

And the statistics back up what we heard. 90 per cent of Australian women with intellectual disability have been subjected to sexual abuse at some time during their lives. There are currently at least 20-30 people in our prison systems who have not been convicted of an offense, but have been found unfit to plead, and gaols are the only accommodation option. From 1989 to 2011 105 people were shot by police, and 42 % had a mental illness.

Women, children, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and people from a culturally and linguistically diverse background with disabilities, are even less likely to have equitable access to justice.

So what can be done? The justice system in Australia is large and complex. The Commission report recommended that each State or Territory develop its own Disability Justice Strategy, to deal with all of the issues raised in our report.

The Commission also put together a database of programmes and services which provide a more positive justice pathway for people with disabilities. http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disability-rights/current-project s/programs-and-services-assist-people-disability-criminal

Much more needs to be done so that Australians with disabilities are truly equal before the law.

These comments were made by me at an Australian Human Rights Commission RightsTalk entitled Balancing The Scales Of Justice on 16 June. The whole RightsTalk can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXvydqXU08I Captioning is in progress at time of posting.

Five Minute Flicks: part one

You’ve gotta love a movie with an excellent story line which you can watch in five minutes! I have twenty of them for you.

One of the activities I led whilst Australia’s Disability Discrimination Commissioner was the production of Twenty Years: Twenty Stories, to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Disability Discrimination Act.

Watch these stories with me, because they show how the actions of the main characters changed their lives, and the lives of thousands of other Australians with disabilities. I’ll give you my review, then you can watch the movie.

Room For Change:

Two young women share a passion for fashion. When both meet a barrier, they choose different methods to get their way- one chooses the law and the other social media.

The results show strength and determination, and pave the way to a “better retail experience”.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/twentystories/video-room-for-change .html

Works For Me

Jake’s birthday swim changed his life.

But his commitment to continue to work, and his employers focus on his skill set rather than his disability, provided a win for all.

Spoiler Alert: Romance ensues.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/twentystories/video-works-for-me.ht ml Reaching Out

Bec Kelly’s combination of skills as a mum and a radio broadcaster bring the perfect result for kids with autism. By reaching out, Beck ensures that the parents of these kids get first-hand the important information they need- by just switching on a radio.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/twentystories/video-reaching-out.ht ml Lights Camera Caption

John is many things- a university graduate, the CFO of a multi-million dollar business, but most importantly a dad and granddad. So watching a movie with his family is a key part of his week.

He had a problem doing this, but solved it in a way which benefited thousands of Australians across the country.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/twentystories/video-lights.html Ramped Up

Mark is your average Ausie bloke. He just wanted a coffee, and his determination to get one provides people with disabilities throughout his district with a much-improved path of access.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/twentystories/video-ramped-up.html Tune in for more movies in future blogs. Or if you just can’t wait, watch them all now.

which ones are your favourites? Comments are very welcome.

Will Uber Play Our Tuba

When you are about to finish in a job, you can’t help thinking of the things you would have done if you were staying.

I’ve been doing that, and wondering about what will happen to these issues. My job as Australia’s Disability Discrimination Commissioner is down-graded after 4 July. Instead of a very full-time role where I have lived experience of disability, and a knowledge of the disability sector, the role will be filled part-time by an existing Commissioner with knowledge of their own sector.

One of these issues is the changing face of our public transport system, particularly taxi transport.

If you have any involvement with the disability sector, you would have to be aware of the problems people with disabilities face using taxis-

* There are not enough accessible taxis on the road, thus making waiting times significantly longer;

* Those accessible taxis on the road are often diverted to other jobs;

* Taxi drivers sometimes refuse to carry passengers who travel with assistance animals.

The list goes on.

But there is an emerging issue, and its impact on people with disabilities could make these problems seem like the first few chords compared with the whole symphony experience.

Increasingly, we are ordering taxis using apps on our smartphones. An improvement you might say, making the process more efficient. But will the efficiency exclude passengers with disabilities? Will they be playing our song?

It’s all very well if the apps supplement the current system-
Silver Service in Sydney is an example, where Taxis Combined enhances its service with an app. It’s all very well if another provider- Ingogo or Gocatch for instance – use existing taxis, but more efficiently or cheaply funnel the business through their app. You get a taxi faster, you don’t have to wait to talk to a human, and you can watch the little dot on your screen as it approaches.

But what about companies such as Uber. Overseas, and beginning in Australia, Uber are offering a range of services, the cheapest of which involves curating a group of private car owners who will provide a “taxi” service for a fee, and putting them in touch with customers. Great, you might say, my taxi service just became cheaper and more available. But for people with disabilities, will it be violins rather than the whole orchestra?

Let’s ask some questions.

* Are passengers insured when travelling on a hire basis in a private vehicle?

* Will these services pick up people who use wheelchairs or mobility equipment?

*Will these services carry people who use assistance animals?

Overseas experience suggests that the answers to all of these questions is no.

But if such services take off, we may see a real decline in authorised taxi services, which will be driven out of business by competition at cheaper rates.

Is anyone yelling budget airlines, and what they have done to passengers with disabilities? Because I am.

The only solution I can come up with, and its not the “silver bullet”, is that – as the providers of services – both the app operator and the private car owner should be liable to the lodging of complaints under the Disability Discrimination Act. I’m not aware of any complaints having been lodged yet, but if you have had this problem you’d better start preparing them. Because if you don’t, these services will be upon us, and it will be a hard tide to turn back.

Even harder without a full-time Commissioner with lived experience of disability. Once again, we’ll be locked out of the orchestral performance.

Graeme Innes will, until 4 July, be Australia’s Disability Discrimination Commissioner.