1 in 6 people in Australia have disability. While all our laws and policies affect people with disability, they are almost never designed with their varied needs at their core.
But what would it look like for us as a society if the rights of people with disability were embedded into our laws and policies through an Australian Charter of Human Rights & Freedoms?
Alice Drury, Hannah Solomons, Liz Hudson and Neha Prakash joined Verity Firth to discuss how a National Charter of Human Rights can make a difference for people with disability, and the lives of all Australians.
VERITY FIRTH: Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge at least for those of us in Australia, we are all on the traditional lands of the First Nations people, and this land was never ceded.
I, today are at UTS. I have a fake background but I am at UTS. I'm on the land of the Gadigal people are the Eora Nation, and I want to pay particular respects to them as the nation's existed, through colonisation and envision, and the nation that continues to hold the knowledge about the lands on which this university is built. My name is Verity Firth, I'm the Pro Vice-Chancellor of social justice and inclusion at UTS. And it is a real pleasure to be co-hosting today's event with the Human Rights Law Centre.
We are joined by a greater line-up of speakers, Alice Drury, Hannah Solomons, Liz Hudson, Neha Prakash, and Tennille Lamb… unfortunately Tenielle was an apology. But for anybody else, we will be discussing human rights and people with disability. I will introduce each of our panellists properly in just a moment.
In Australia, one August -- what is six people or about 4.4 million people have disability. We have a Disability Discrimination Act which aims as far as possible to eliminate discrimination against a person with disability in public life and to ensure as far as practical -- practicable that persons with disabilities have the same rights to equality before the law as the rest of the community. While all our laws and policies affect people with disability, they are seldom designed with their varied needs at their core.
Could a Charter of Human Rights be a better model for upholding rights of people disability? Human rights charters in our states and overseas have helped prevent human rights violations and provide a powerful tool for challenging injustices. I am looking forward to hearing from each of today's panellists about how we can its centre the human rights of people with disability and law and policy.
And it is my pleasure to welcome each of them here now. I will give you a description of their expertise as I do so.
Alice Drury is the Acting Legal Director of the Human Rights Law Centre. Alice works on systemic and emerging threats to Australian democracy, such as getting big money out of politics and putting it into end mass surveillance. Previous, Alice was the Legal Director of GetUp and has vast experience in responding to government interference with civil society, having defended the high-profile activist organisation at a time of significant government pressure. Welcome, Alice.
Hannah Solomons is a PhD candidate at the UTS Faculty of Law with lived experience of disability. The focus of how research is held making disabled people the exception to the rule all the time affects the rule of law.
She is also the head of Disability Pride Sydney, is passionate about the rights of disabled people and considers the current state of affairs the human rights crisis on our doorstep. Welcome, Hannah.
Liz Hudson is Policy and Research Manager from children and young people with disability Australia. She has extensive experience within the disability, community service and mental health sectors. She completed her PhD at RMIT on the experiences of people with psychosocial disability during transition to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Welcome, Liz.
And last but not least, we have Neha Prakash, joined the National Ethnic Disability Alliance to lead a program focused on improving refugees's and humanitarian entrants's access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. She is currently the Director of Strategy and Partnerships of the National Ethnic Disability Alliance. Her previous work experience includes working as a settlement officer, leading me to -- leading legal literacy programs and advocating the rights of migrants and refugees. Welcome, Neha.
A question, this is to all of you, we have protections in the law. We know we have it already, like the disability discrimination act that aims to ensure equality. But are these protections working? And if not, what are some of the big challenges faced by people with disability? And we might start with you, Alice, as our co-host for the event today.
ALICE DRURY: Sure, many thanks, Verity. The Disability Discrimination Act is centred around issues individuals might have when they face discrimination on the basis of having a disability. For instance, it often comes up in situations and appointments where you are looking at situations where people are treated less than modesty -- the legalistic term for it. There are situations where people are not covered legally, where an employer may not accept an employee has a disability to begin with.
And in situations that cause we have found that you don't believe somebody has a disability you cannot disconnect them based on that disability, so those are the examples of the sorts of gaps that people experience under the current regime.
VERITY FIRTH: Liz, do you have any issues around that?
LIZ HUDSON: Yes, thanks, Verity. While the Disability Discrimination Act operates across Australia and it is applicable in all states and territories, it really is failing to implement Australia's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities.
As on the side of children and young people with disability Australia, an organisation that Advocate for Children and Young People disability, we are interested in the education sector, and Australia's education is fragmented across states and territories, each operating with their own systems with their own policies and legislations.
In relation to education, neither the disability discrimination act nor its subordinate legislation, the Disability Standards for Education, expresses my -- expressively mentioned the UN Convention on the right of people with disability.
We see this as an invitation and the disability discrimination act has largely been ineffective to prevent that kind of widespread gatekeeping in our Australian education system. There may be informal denial or discouragement of children with disability attending mainstream schools.
That is the biggest concern, around the education. We also believe that human rights protections for children and young people with disability are needed in many areas across education, employment, the justice system, out-of-home care and the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
VERITY FIRTH: That is an issue, presumably because act does not cover the scope of what people with disability are facing.
LIZ HUDSON: Exactly. Especially around inclusive education and the right for inclusive education.
VERITY FIRTH: That is a good point. Neha?
NEHA PRAKASH: Thank you, Verity. And just to add to Alice's point earlier, I think there are some gaps and loopholes in the Act which does not cover everyone. For example, what we, NEDA looks into mainly is exemptions to seven -- exemptions in the migration act. Often families run the risk of having their visas cancelled or having their application is refused, because they are not able to meet the health requirement in the act or regulation for stroke Australia has strict health requirements and policies and it is not consistent with the protections and obligations under article 5 and article 8 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Article 18 looks at movement, and there are a lot of gaps and loopholes in the Act.
It is not the best. Yeah, thank you.
VERITY FIRTH: Hannah, just coming to you, what do you think of the Disability Discrimination Act? Does it ensure equality? What are some of the challenges that people face who have disability?
HANNAH SOLOMONS: No. That is the short answer to that. I was discussing this with my disabled colleagues and there was a general reaction along the same lines. I would actually go so far as to say that the law as it currently stands could actually have a deceptive effect where you are in an advocacy situation and someone will say, "We follow the requirements to the letter of the law and you complain that something is going wrong systemically. Because what the response from politicians is, "You know it is illegal to discriminate against disabled people?" Yes, I do, actually. What happens is when you pass a law you create this legitimacy that everything is as it should be, when actually it is not possible. Graeme Innes, the disability dissdiscrimination issioner had to get a $10,000 compensation payout.
I would say in short, no, in.
VERITY FIRTH: That is interesting. Staying with you now, Hannah. I want to talk about your research. Your research focuses on making people with a disability the exception to the rule. The fact that we make them the exception to the rule all the time affects the rule of law. Can you talk to some of your findings and research?
HANNAH SOLOMONS: Often, the law will frame it is something we can do. Often when they make a law, they will make a law assuming people do not have disability and put in little exceptions to try and deal with disability in the situation.
They do this in a number of different ways. But what you don't make a law that centres disability, what you end up with is the equivalent of kind of a grocery store that does not sell groceries, because disabled people are the people who most likely need the law. What you find is the judiciary will often create an exception by excluding factors to do with disability from the decision-making process.
Or they will draw incredibly sharp boundaries around what is a disability. As soon as you do that, you can't actually access the exceptions to the disability at all. I am working on a case. One of the cases I am working on in my research that I'm analysing is a case where two disabled people were imprisoned, automatically basically for non-payment of fines.
And neither of them raised the fact that they had a disability. One of them was a person with mental health issue who was locked in a cell speaking to a legal aid lawyer for five minutes through a hole in a wall. And she went into a panic attack and decided not to raise her disability because she was in a state of terror. She was treated like everybody else, which is harsh, and they were like "Our system caters to people with disability, because we have these provisions." But the provisions are impossible to access because the law likes to keep things nice and contained.
One of the lawyers testified in this case that he has never had a person with an intellectual disability raised him that they have an intellectual disability. Like it is almost impossible.
Another option is the law, they will be this kind of discretionary, very broad discretionary exceptions, that the judiciary or the ministry has to cater to people with disabilities. What that essentially is is a violation of the rule of law. In one case called Marion's case, which is still the authority for a huge number of cases in Australia, despite the fact that it was a forced sterilisation case, the dissenting judge said to decide any case by reference to the formula of best interests, so that's it, you have discretion to do whatever is in the best interests, is not really a test at all. It allows lawyers and courts to persuade themselves and others that theirs is a principal approach to law, meanwhile they engage in what you others is clearly a form of ad hoc-ery.
What can actually happen, is that you get deported for having a baby with a disability. And the government's answer to that would be you can appeal to the Minister's discretion. And that is in a lot of situations. A former human rights commission actually said, "That's a violation of Magna Carta." Because it's literally the king can exile on them. We are actually violating everything.
What you see is when the courts treat disability as a normal variation on the law, that is a factor to be considered, they tend to uphold these fundamental values in a very different way.
VERITY FIRTH: That's really interesting, Hannah. Alice, I am going to come to you because Hannah has raised some stark examples of challenges faced by people with disability in Australia, particularly the Australian courts. So do these, she is saying they reach Magna Carta. Do some of these examples go against the human rights and support is in -- and Australia's international commitments in terms of human rights treaties?
ALICE DRURY: They certainly do. To bring it back to the experience of people who have migrated to Australia and had disabilities or children with disabilities, you have a right under the Convention of the rights of people with disability to equality and nondiscrimination, under article 5. There is no carveout in that article to say that there is an exception to children of migrants or people who have recently arrived in Australia.
Another example, what Liz is talking about in terms of the right to equality of education under article 24 the Convention, there is no qualification there to say "Unless it is too hard for the school." Or they haven't gotten around to it. It actually imposes a much ber positive obligation on states to take actions to allow children to be educated like everybody else in an inclusive, mainstream school.
All of these instances that have been raised thus far definitely conflict with Australia's obligations under the Convention.
VERITY FIRTH: So Neha, tell us, given that, tell us a bit about your experience with the National Ethnic Disability Alliance, and your work with culturally and linguistically diverse communities, including obviously refugees and humanitarian entrants. What is required to ensure their unique needs are considered in our policies and systems?
NEHA PRAKASH: Thank you Verity. National Ethnic Disability Alliance is a cross national disability peak body, that supports and advocates for the rights of people with disability from migrant and refugee backgrounds. It is a disabled persons organisation, which means the majority of our board members as well as people, the staff, are people with disability from culturally and then linguistically diverse backgrounds, as well as... When we say --
When we say systemically talking about bringing about attitudinal and social changes to ensure all of this is inclusive and meets the needs of people with disability. For them to be able to participate on equal basis with others, there is a few things that needs to be considered. One being you have to work in partnership with community organisations, with people with disability, with disabled people's organisations, when you are co-designing or designing or producing any service therapy, design system, policies, the core reforms, any research evaluation that affects them. -- Legal.
Does capacity so they can advocate on a grassroots level, and for any activism to happen, you have to be providing opportunities and platform for their voices to be heard. You have to make sure all, you include them in all formal and informal consultations as well as decision-making processes. Make sure that, any barriers that can impact socio-economic, they can have a socio economic impact on their rights in terms of systemic level, a social level, community level, is addressed.
Looking at exploring scalable options and solutions with people with disability, and also looking out what works for whom, and in what context it works. Looking into some of these details, desegregated data around disability and culturally and think linguistically diverse people with a disability, because this always. You don't get the data enough, and it is important to understand the current state, including by other gaps. -- Where are the gaps.
Looking at universal solutions that benefit everyone and make things simple, as well as looking at obviously people with disability are experts for their own rights and needs, so include them in a meaningful way. Engagement has to be done, keeping in mind the United Nations conventions. Some of the standards they have set.
And often what happens is they are included in some part of the consultation, and then they are closed in terms of all the information that happens, and everything that happens after. For example, "We want to hear about XYZ that we plan to implement." After they hear from them, there is no information about where that is going, how it is being used. So it is really important to close that information loop and keep them included from start to end.
One of the things that happens, they should really consider the negative impact of monolingual-ism, which is reducing these sources in one language. So if people don't speak the official or national language, it is important to look at what other options we have. For example, if there is just one language and people (inaudible) another person or professional, their family member, to get access to information. Often their bias is the other person's bias, may impact what other -- what information is being delivered. So to avoid all of this, it is important to locate, producing them in different formats, easy read, easy to understand formats, it can be people's preferred languages, and it should not be an afterthought. There should be resource for and thought through if the budgeting (inaudible) while designing, and not "We only have this much money left." Well, it is an accessibility issue.
Even making small changes can really (inaudible). For example the NDIA provides translated information if you request them. If at the beginning of an applicant process, the preferred language is Arabic, for example, if they make it a rule that they would produce, would provide them with an English as well as an Arabic version, as an option for people to opt out, then there is going to be (inaudible) used. Looking at reducing resources.
It can go on, I can go on. But some of these are things that should be considered.
VERITY FIRTH: Thanks, that's really good. Liz, I'm going to come to you now, because you mentioned in your opening remarks, but one of the big focus is for your organisation, Children and Young People with Disability Australia, is that you were working to create a more inclusive education system. An equality for young people in public life. Can you tell us a bit about the worker organisation does to meet these goals? -- Your organisation.
LIZ HUDSON: Thank you. Before I begin, I want to provide some context, but also to follow on a point that Neha raised before about inclusion, starting at the beginning, and that is something that people from the CYDA community indicate is very important, that inclusion starts very early. So right at the early childhood education and care sector, from the beginning, inclusion starts then.
To put that in context, over 50 years of evidence tells us that inclusive education actually this prepare students with disability for life and success after they finish their education. But unfortunately, students with disability in Australia face so many challenges in accessing inclusive education. And as I mentioned earlier, don't comply with the recognition under the United Nations Convention people with disability, but also the United Nations can the child, and -- Convention on the rights of the child. Students with disability often face discrimination, segregation from their peers, bullying, restrictive practices, suspensions and expulsions.
In fact, the research suggests school-age students with disability are segregated and suspended and expelled at higher rates than their peers. Further, the highest level of educational attainment for people with disability remains lower than that for Children and Young People without Disability'ie These inequities can have lifelong implications. We argue that a transformation education is needed to ensure Australia complies with the CPRD and the Convention of the rights of the child. We know inclusive education is essential for creating the inclusivity. We would argue all Australian children must be welcomed and supported at their local school, and provided with high-quality, inclusive education.
But sadly, for too many Children and Young People with Disability, this is not the case. That is evident in our work.
Some of our work includes, we conduct annual surveys on education. This year, for the first time, we actually did a survey where we ask young people, students with disability, to report on their experiences in school. And we had 231 responses, and unfortunately in our report on that survey, we have had to put a constant warning around the material in the responses were very grim around the first-hand experiences of violence that young people experience in schools.
We had over 70% of our survey respondents actually experience exclusion, and 65% experience building. Not only -- bullying. Not only did they tick their response to say they had experienced bullying, they were offered an opportunity to give free text responses. We had nearly 100 respond to say, to detail those experiences of bullying.
Although some of these responses were to indicate actually that responses had been bullied, they had experienced that many times and didn't actually want to provide that detail, because to recount the specifics would prove re-traumatising.
That's alarming, grim, and therefore it doesn't uphold the rights of students with disability.
Some other aspects of our work, in particular, CYDA is the Secretariat for the Australian coalition for inclusive education, and that is a national coalition bringing together organisations that share a commitment to improving and advancing inclusive education in Australia, and across state and territory education systems. Including government and non-government schools. The Australian coalition of education have developed a national roadmap with five goals and pillars they want to achieve, and includes calling an end to segregation, to eliminate research of -- restrictive practices which are occurring at an alarming rate and to stop discrimination and bullying.
They are some of the ways that we in our work that we have had young people with disability be involved in co-designing their own policy papers around issues like inclusive education and human rights.
And they ran a number of consultations in 2021 and that resulted in a five policy papers co-designed and written by young people with disability calling out these issues and responding to government inquiries and submitting policy papers and submission to that like the ones we have done with young people with disability.
VERITY FIRTH: That is great. It is a good segue to what Liz has been talking about in terms of segregation in education. I thought we might go to some of our audience questions, and the one that has the most so far is Katia's question. And any of the panellists who want to take a go at answering it just put your hands up while I read it out.
Katia's make a point that government so far has been reluctant to address segregation on the basis of disability and to recognise the practice as a discriminatory practice and a breach of equality and under the human rights claw in Australia. However, segregation has been the core of the struggle for people who are disabled for human rights, how do we progress disability reform to transition out of segregated models of support for disabled people?
Who would like to have a go at answering that first. Who has a view around that? Liz first. And I will come to you Hannah, then to Alice and then Neha.
LIZ HUDSON: We can have this call to end segregation, but we need to have a phased approach to ensuring the quality of inclusive education happen simultaneously as a plan to phase out segregated education, because there is no point of closing schools that are not inclusive unless there is an alternative model that is quality education.
The Australian Coalition for Inclusive Education has a national roadmap developed for stepping through the ways we can ensure equality in inclusive education systems.
VERITY FIRTH: What do you think, Hannah, how can we progress out of segregated models of support?
HANNAH SOLOMONS: I did not put my hand up.
VERITY FIRTH: Sorry. You don't have to answer it. Do you want me to move to Alice?
HANNAH SOLOMONS: The general problem I think is lack of design. You need universal design in education to move forward slowly as a concept. And generally that is how we need to approach everything rather than seeing disability as a side problem and a fringe issue which is how we think.
And that goes for every area in policy.
VERITY FIRTH: Thanks Hannah. That is great. Alice?
ALICE DRURY: I think the Charter of Human Rights is key, a key way to moving forward to ensure that segregation is no longer… but in fact inclusion and taking positive steps ensuring that people with disability have exactly the same accessibility is as able-bodied people. I would give a shameless plug to the Charter of Human Rights.
VERITY FIRTH: Neha when I come to you, we might talk about transitioning out of segregation but I might ask your opinion about an Australian Charter of Human Rights. Because of the next question from the audience is exactly that. Is there a need for a federal Charter of Human Rights as a means of addressing these patchy legislation issues?
NEHA PRAKASH: Yes, 100%. That is the quick answer. Talking about inclusive education, there were something brought up in the recent conferences of state parties under UN Convention of the rights of people with disability. A lot of countries thinking about the importance of inclusive education and how to bring about that transition and they were looking at how there was a lack of research in this space in times of -- in terms of best practice and what needs to be done.
And some of the conversation spoke about how you included this in teachers's training and parents and the whole education system and everyone not working in silos but together as well as looking at… I made a lot of notes when the conference was happening, but it was more around looking at the shift when it happens has to take into consideration relevant context and it has to be done in a relevant and appropriate manner. It may because good intention is amazing, but what if it does not translate into meaningful and inclusive solutions? There is no point for stroke it has to be done well and it has to be done in an appropriate manner is what was discussed.
Did I answer everything? Sorry.
VERITY FIRTH: That was good. Alice, since you were doing a shameless plug for human rights Charter, a Charter of Human Rights. How do you feel it will make a difference for people with disability if we were to introduce a human rights Charter in Australia?
ALICE DRURY: Essentially the starting position for a charter is the well-being and rights of people should be at the heart of the decision that the government makes. And that is what Charter of Human Rights would do. In particular, with the participation of duty which is something the Australian human rights commission has put forward in the disability rights space, nothing about us without us mantra and what that would do is put to the obligation of government to ensure there is deep consultation, meaning consultation with people with disability regarding any government positions that disproportionately impacts people with disability.
That is just one of the key things that a charter would achieve. Not to mention ensuring that people have recourse to action when their right to education, inclusive education, as a prospective.
VERITY FIRTH: One of the questions in the chart is from Belinda. She says that Queensland has a human rights now in section 36 contains the rights for a child to access education. She is interested to know if there is a similar right in other jurisdictions and if it has been used successfully from the inclusion of children in state schools? The emphasis of the wording in section 36 is access and appropriate to their needs. Liz, you might know the answer to that question. Do you?
You are muted still.
LIZ HUDSON: Sorry, I don't have the details at hand and know what legislation is and the wording for each of the states. But I do know there are some states where they have a human rights charter or an Act where students and children with disability have a position or their situation assisted through having the charter or the Act. But I don't know what the actual wording is.
I know in Victoria there is the human rights act, but in Queensland as well. Yes, but I don't half -- I don't have the details at hand.
VERITY FIRTH: Alice, I will come to you in a second. But essentially what you are saying is how the human rights act is developed. Alice, do you have any further details on that question?
ALICE DRURY: The rights to education also exist under the ACT Charter. And I recommend people check out the Charter of Human Rights website which has 101 different cases listed there. But a.I would mention one of them which is in Victoria, a child with learning disability was facing expulsion as a result of their behavioural issues. The child was able to raise the student's rights to education and in that instance it was successful in preventing the expulsion. That was one example of the charter being used in an individual's case to make sure they were not discriminated against in Victoria.
VERITY FIRTH: OK. Liz, you had something further to add?
LIZ HUDSON: Yes, we and ourselves and another disability representative organisation, the Australian Human Rights Law Centre put in a joint policy submission to the Disability Royal Commission about introducing the charter and listed examples, case studies that Alice just mentioned before about the successful application of the use of the human rights charter in those states.
I have a couple of other examples, but to what Alice said, there was a young woman in Victoria via the human rights charter was able to access disability services that were previously she had been declined that. And a child with a disability was exempted from being in detention in hotel quarantine by the Queensland human resources act due to their behavioural challenges of the child, so the child and family did seek an exemption and it was approved.
They were just a couple of examples, but there are many ways that a charter can assist.
VERITY FIRTH: That is good. How practical case studies can help. The next question from Dana is a good one. What role can industry play in supporting and leading the way on policy for people with disability and employeementiof people th disability? We owe stock about government and industry services, but what about the corporate sector? Does anyone want to have a go at answering this first? Otherwise, I'm going to pick on you.
Neha, do you have any views on what role industry can play, particularly for the employment of people with disability. ?
NEHA PRAKASH: Ensuring you provide reasonable accommodations when necessary, listening and responding appropriately. Ensuring if there is any training required providing those opportunities for people to progress higher. Provide opportunities and make sure there is representation, where in high-level positions as well.
Even in the NDIS, there should be people with disability involved. Yes, I think that is a starting point. Thank you.
VERITY FIRTH: Thanks, Neha. Alice, what do you think the role of industry?
ALICE DRURY: I think there is chronically high levels, incredibly high levels of unemployment and underemployment of people with disability. What we can see the industry can do is seek to address that. I do organisations like Vision Australia are arguing for all quotas for instance in the public service. That is a common -- conversation that industries can be having.
To ensure they are doing the hard yards and putting their money where their mouth is.
VERITH FIRTH: Liz?
LIZ HUDSON: I think also industry, the existence of the moment of the Australian Disability Enterprises. There is breaches of human rights with regards to payment, people with disability in those environments. CYDA would argue that we actively work towards the goal of ending segregation not only in schools but in housing and workplaces.
Whilst it is not corporate I am giving advice to, if there is an opportunity to give people, to include people with disability and employment that is not segregated and doesn't, they are not underpaid.
VERITY FIRTH: Hannah.
HANNAH SOLOMONS: I would like to echo what Liz said, (inaudible) are unacceptable, and just a mentality, for example, during COVID. The government pandemic plan didn't mention disability anywhere, and when they brought out the first announcement that they were going to help us, it was a bailout for ADEs, and they were kept open when they have a huge factory spreading.
Underneath all of that is the general problem of segregation in our entire public policy. Disabled people, if you take an interaction model of disability, it is an interaction between impairment and the site in which you live, which is fairly, that is kind of what international human rights uses. You can no longer say that disabled people are a separate group because the disability is informed by society.
I Roomba part of my advocacy work, creating this slideshow that says "This is the first 10 minutes of an able-bodied person's life." Which is they wake up on a mattress designed by experts and custom-built, they use an assistive device to help them get up in the morning, the government provides electricity so they can see what they are going, and they are dependent on the city for water. And yet an employer looks at a disabled person and says "Oh my goodness, you need extra help." Forget that I provide computers and ergonomic chairs. The law requires these things already, so long as they are mainstream.
But as soon as it is a disability, it is shuffled into a different area of law. And I think that is the interesting thing about the Bill of Rights debate, is that there are people who would point out that in America, despite having a Bill of Rights, there was still forced sterilisation of disabled women with the famous Supreme Court quote "3 generations of idiots is enough." That was their highest court. Adjudicating on a Bill of Rights case.
But what you seem to find in practice is that having a Bill of Rights focuses the judiciary on our humanity. Because we have rights as human beings. And that is the huge difference, is that you were no longer looking at what, the rights the person has as a disabled person. You like "This person has a right to fair pay. What is fair pay?" That is the big difference. I think.
VERITY FIRTH: Yeah, I think that's a really good point. Neha?
NEHA PRAKASH: Thanks, Verity. Just adding to what Alice mentioned earlier, I think in terms of hiring more people, one of the things would be to ensure that any future federally funded employment services incorporate specialist services as well as inclusion experts, because many of the consultants and implement services are not qualified -- employment services are not qualified or experienced in supporting people with disability and understanding individual barriers to employment.
I think as well as looking at providing, having them to ongoing training and professional development would be really good, as well as holding them accountable in terms of getting that done through any funded ones. Thank you.
VERITY FIRTH: Alice?
ALICE DRURY: Thanks, Verity. I'd also say if we can give particular industries, I think, I think we should be asking to the table the rights of people with disability are at the centre of their decision-making, other service providers. -- Other service providers of disability care and aged care. That is what we're seeing clearly from both of the Royal commissions, that that is not the case currently. That is definitely one because we would have of industry and service providers in those spaces.
VERITY FIRTH: And more generally, it is really interesting about the big asks, coming back to the panel as a whole, what would you like to see in the way we talk and think about disability and law and policy conversations? I sort of mean that about all of us, about us as a culture, as a society. What would you like to see change? Liz, what about you first?
LIZ HUDSON: I think changing in the conversation is to go back to the theme that I have been representing today, is to have a change in the way that we use language to talk. That is, so it is not just inclusive education, but inclusive language, and that we respect the rights of the, respect the experience of people with disability about how, what language they would like to use to represent, to be represented.
I think language changes, and that flows onto cultural change. And a more inclusive society. So that does focus on the human rights. I think it is just that language, and include, as Alice mentioned before, nothing about us without us, also reframed to nothing without us. That people with disability are included in all things that impact and effect them. And others in society.
It's about involving lived experience.
VERITY FIRTH: Hannah, what would you like to see change in the way we think and talk about disability and b law and licy in Australia?
HANNAH SOLOMONS: I would like to see us actually think and talk about it. As I said there are so many situations where it is not dealt with. I mention the pandemic plan, which was drafted 5 years before the pandemic, they just didn't mention disability at all.
The many times politicians will, it was quite unusual in this federal election to have politicians discussing disability. Normally it is just not talked about. Diversity includes disability. If you want to talk about diversity, you have to talk about us. And at the moment, that is not the case. And that includes in the law, in policy.
I think also we need to stop assuming that good things are happening. And stop giving people the benefit of the doubt. At the moment we rely a lot on what we call soft law. And that creates, and self-regulation, and that really gives the benefit of the doubt to people that it is in their interests not to respect people's rights if they don't have to.
Just a really simple example, many jurisdictions in Australia don't actually have laws, they have soft law, they don't have laws regulating restrictive practices. So you can tie people up, lock them in their rooms, inject them with drugs against their wills, and we just assume they are doing that for the right reasons.
The stuff we are talking about is really basic stuff. I think people need to know these things are happening, and they are not regulated.
VERITY FIRTH: Neha, what would you like to see changed?
NEHA PRAKASH: I think as Liz mentioned, and just adding to the change in language. Because framing is really important, and makes a huge difference in the long run as well. Moving away from the medical model of disability, (inaudible) social model of disability during the UN CRPD standards, making sure any attitudinal and barriers, those are the ones that (inaudible) making things more inclusive and accessible and respectful.
As well as, I think, often when people with disability are being discussed, the whole term of vulnerable is also discussed. I think moving away from it is very important as well, I think language and how we speak about this will be right, this is key. Thanks.
VERITY FIRTH: And Alice, what would you like to see changed?
ALICE DRURY: Much of the same that folks have already said. I think a key thing is moving away from, as Neha said, moving away from vulnerability, and compassion. This isn't about compassion, this is about rights. It is inarguable and it stops there.
Reflecting on what Hannah was saying in terms of how in the US a Bill of Rights, and in Australia a charter of rights, which focused the minds of the judiciary on rights of people with disability would add to that. The beauty of a charter is ideally you don't even get to the courts because the government and all of the people making decisions that affect people with disability in the government have the rights, with people disability front and centre in their minds were they making those decisions.
VERITY FIRTH: I think that is really powerful, framing of inalienable human rights that every human being has as opposed to a lot of people feeling sorry for people, which is not power at all, is it?
Last question I am going to come to all of you, this will be your last chance to tell the audience what you think. My final question is, what do you think would be the most powerful tool for upholding, uplifting the rights of people with disability? Liz, what is the most powerful tool?
LIZ HUDSON: It's a human rights charter that reflects the human rights of children and young, and all people with disability, the children and young under the convention of the rights of disability, and the convention of the rights of the child.
VERITH FIRTH: Hannah, what do you think?
HANNAH SOLOMONS: I think a human rights charter would be pretty good. I think access to advocacy and justice is really important, because at the moment it is very difficult to actually get anything done, and advocate.
VERITY FIRTH: Neha?
NEHA PRAKASH: What the rest of the mentioned is very important, as well as considering the experiences and outcomes of people with disability, not just in the disability space, but across all areas, agencies, all sectors, and at all levels of work. Whether it be government, private sector, community level, everything. I think it is important. Thinking about intersectionality and the interdependence of all human rights and freedoms, and the needs of people with disabilities, because often, think about people with disability having one need and looking at the discrete sector itself, but I feel like it is all interdependent. And that needs to be considered.
VERITY FIRTH: People are more complex than that, they don't just fit one box or...
NEHA PRAKASH: Exactly, that intersectionality always misses out.
VERITY FIRTH: And last but not least, Alice, you can have the final word! I think I can guess what you're going to say, but what would be the most powerful tool for upholding the rights of people with disability?
ALICE DRURY: What could it be? What might I think? Definitely charter of rights, for sure. Absolutely. That would also achieve what Neha was speaking to around intersectionality. We need a charter of rights that covers the field, and covers lots of different experiences of people.
On that I am going to give one last shameless plug to folks to check out the charter of rights website to find out more about the campaign for the charter and how to get involved.
VERITY FIRTH: Thank you everyone, and please do check out that website. Also anyone who has registered for this webinar will receive the link, until free to share the link foreign wide. The session is recorded, so please share it with your networks.
Thank you again for joining us, thank you again to our esteemed panellists who were all really wonderful. And we will see you again next time. Cheers.
If you are interested in hearing about future events, please contact events.socialjustice@uts.edu.au
We need to consider the experiences and outcomes of people with disability, not just in the disability space, but across all areas, agencies, sectors and levels of work. Whether it’s government, private sector, community level – we need to think about intersectionality and the interdependence of all human rights and freedoms. – Neha Prakash
Diversity includes disability. If you want to talk about diversity, you have to talk about us. At the moment, that is not the case, including in law and policy. – Hannah Solomons
The wellbeing and rights of people should be at the heart of government decision-making. It would put the obligation of the government to ensure deep and meaningful consultation with people with disability regarding any positions that disproportionally impacts them. – Alice Drury
We need a change in the way we use language. It’s not just inclusive education but inclusive language, and we need to respect the rights and experience of people with disability about what language they would like to use to represent and be represented. – Liz Hudson
Speakers
Alice Drury is the Acting Legal Director of the Human Rights Law Centre. Alice works on systemic and emerging threats to Australian democracy, such as getting big money out of politics and putting an end to mass surveillance. Previously, Alice was the Legal Director of GetUp and has first-hand experience in responding to government interference with civil society, having defended the high-profile activist organisation at a time of significant government pressure.
Hannah Solomons is a PhD candidate at the UTS Faculty of Law with lived experience of disability. The focus of her research is how making disabled people the exception to the rule all the time affects the rule of law. She is also the head of Disability Pride Sydney, is passionate about the rights of disabled people and considers the current state of affairs a human rights crisis on our doorstep.
Liz Hudson is Policy and Research Manager from Children and Young People with Disability Australia. She has extensive experience within the disability, community service and mental health sectors. She completed her PhD at RMIT on the experiences of people with psychosocial disability during transition to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).
Neha Prakash joined the National Ethnic Disability Alliance (NEDA) to lead a program that focused on improving refugees’ and humanitarian entrants’ access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). She is currently the Director of Strategy and Partnerships, supporting NEDA in achieving its strategic priorities. Her previous work experience includes working as a settlement officer, leading legal literacy programs and advocating for the rights of migrants and refugees.