Survey-only consultation
The Draft Terms of Reference (DTOR) for the Commonwealth Government’s announced Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (Disability Royal Commission) were released for public consultation on Wednesday 14 March. You can read our comments on the DTOR here.
The Commonwealth Department of Social Security (DSS) is in charge of the consultation over a 2-week period ending 27 March. At this stage, the only specified avenue for ‘consultation’ appears to to be limited to an on-line survey. While this has the advantage of assisting to expedite the review of feedback and therefore to progress more quickly to the establishment of the Royal Commission, it is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons.
For example, while an effort has been made to ensure accessibility to the survey, there are still some concerns, including that the format of some of the questions is likely to be confusing for people with intellectual and cognitive disabilities.
The other issue is that the way the survey has been structured limits the opportunity to make full and substantive comment beyond the issues specifically canvassed by the survey questions and its focus on ‘ranking’ various matters suggests that the survey results could be used to narrow the ultimate Terms of Reference and the focus the Disability Royal Commission.
Further, there is no transparency in the on-line survey, its results and how the results may be used, whereas substantive written submissions are usually made public.
To survey or not to survey … that is the question
It is worth noting that the consultation on the terms of reference for the recent Commonwealth Royal Commissions into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Misconduct in the Financial Sector and Aged Care were not through a ‘contained’ and ‘structured’ survey-based ‘consultation’ process and advocacy groups have contacted DSS to request a substantive and broader submission process. It is unclear at this stage whether this will happen and some people are worried about not having a say about the scope and establishment of the Disability Royal Commission, so in the meantime we have been asked to share what we know about the survey and how we may consider answering some of its questions. In particular, we would use the “comment boxes” included with some of the questions, to provide more substantive comments and point out critical omissions in the DTOR and survey.
We note the warning at the start of the survey that the issues discussed in it may be confronting and distressing and may trigger distress and traumatic memories for people, particularly for people who have experienced abuse or trauma.
Question 1 – prioritising “themes” (Initially required, now optional)
* We are interested in which themes you think are the most important for this Royal Commission. Please rank the following themes from 1 (most important) to 7 (least important). Place numbers 1-7 in the boxes alongside each theme or drag items to place in priority order. (Optional)
This has been identified as one of the most problematic questions of the survey and many people who started the survey have abandoned it because this was a required question – it was not possible to complete the rest of the survey without answering it. After this article was originally published, this question was changed to ‘optional’. It is not known how earlier survey responses which were subject to a “required” ranking answer will be treated in any analysis of results.
In asking participants to rank priorities and the importance of various matters that are relevant to the DTOR and should be included within its scope, this question suggests that its results could be used to narrow the scope of the ultimate Terms of Reference. In this regard, all of the priorities provided are “forward looking” and focus on future improvement or reform. Notably, none of them suggest a focus on justice for victims and redress.
In addition, the premise that the relative significance of, and response to, violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability should be ranked, is also unsatisfactory and objectionable in itself. We cannot imagine the same type of ‘ranking’ question being used in the same way for any consultative survey relating to an inquiry into child sexual abuse.
Accordingly, while we cannot suggest a way to rank these priorities and believe that they are all interconnected and essential, if we had to do so we would consider ranking highly the broader priorities around “preventing violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability in our community” and “promoting a more respectful and inclusive society and the right of people with disability in our community”. Comment about the fundamental problems of including this question can also be made in the “comments box” in Question 2.
Question 2 – Rating 3 focus areas of the Royal Commission (Required)
*What governments, institutions and the community should do to prevent and better protect people with disability from experiencing violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation.
This question is again “future focussed” only and overlooks justice for victims and redress. It asks for a rating of “Essential”, “High Priority”, “Medium Priority” and “Low Priority” for each of 3 suggested focus areas around what governments should do to protect people with disability from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation and to respond to incidents, and what should be done to promote a more respectful and inclusive society.
We would rate each of these areas as “Essential”.
A “comment box” is also provided and here we would consider providing the following feedback in it.
- All of the suggested focus areas are connected, essential and of equal priority.
- The premise in Question 1 that the relative significance of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation should be ranked, is unsatisfactory and objectionable.
- The focus of the Disability Royal Commission must not only be “forward looking” as is suggested in the Draft Terms of Reference and in the survey questions. The Disability Royal Commission must expressly include investigation of current and historical abuse, aimed at ensuring justice and redress for victims. This aspect should mirror the focus and terms of reference for the Royal Commission for Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
Question 3 – Yes, ALL all FORMS of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation! (Required)
* Should the Royal Commission cover all forms of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation?
Are there any forms of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation that you think the Royal Commission should not cover? Please write them in the space below.
This question is in 2 parts and considers the scope of the Disability Royal Commission in terms of the “forms of violence, abuse neglect and exploitation”. We would tick the “YES” box in the first part of the question and in the “comment box” clearly state that the Royal Commission “must cover ALL areas”.
Question 4 – Yes, ALL SETTINGS! (Required)
* Should the Royal Commission look into violence and abuse in all settings (places where abuse might happen)?
This question is straightforward, and effectively seeks to identify whether there should be limits on the range of settings. We would tick the “YES” box to indicate that ALL settings must be included.
Question 5 – Rating importance of specific settings (Optional)
* Thinking about the different settings where violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation may take place, please rate how much of a priority you think each of the following settings should be in this Royal Commission.
Other (please specify)
Are there any settings (places where abuse might happen) that you think the Royal Commission should not cover? Please write them in the space below.
While this is the first “optional” question of the survey, as questions 1-4 were all “required” to be answered, we suggest that this is an important question to answer.
Like question 2, it asks for a rating of “Essential”, “High Priority”, “Medium Priority” and “Low Priority”, for each of 10 suggested categories of settings, from “Prisons and corrective services”, to “Educational settings”, “Workplaces”, “Workplaces”, “Health and hospital settings”, “Disability services”, “Shared living (group homes, rooming houses, hostels)”, “Private homes”, “Transport”, “Religious and cultural settings” and “Sporting and recreational settings”.
We believe that the key consideration here for the Disability Royal Commission is the violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation itself, rather than the place where it happens – so there should be no limitation as to setting and on that basis we would answer “Essential” for each of the suggested categories.
Further, in the first of the 2 “comments boxes” provided, we would also consider adding other categories of setting that have been omitted in this survey question. We understand that some participants have added:
- “immigration detention centres including offshore detention centres” as it is known that some of the people detained in them have or have acquired disabilities
- “child and adult day care centres” and “respite centres” because it is unclear whether these would fall within the listed categories in the survey question; and
- “Australian Disability Enterprises” (ADEs)/sheltered workshops, as clarification because there is no definition of “workplaces” in the survey question.
There is a second “comments box” to provide feedback on whether there are any settings (places where abuse might happen) that you think the Royal Commission should NOT cover. We suggest the answer to this should be an emphatic “NO” for the reasons we have stated above – violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability should be addressed wherever it is occurring, no place should be exempt from being exposed and fully explored.
Question 6 – Yes to ALL services (Optional)
* Should the Royal Commission look at all aspects of quality and safety of services to people with disability? For example, this would include supports and services provided by government and institutions, as well as informal supports provided by institutions, carers or others in the community.
Is there anything about the quality and safety of services provided to people with disability that you think the Royal Commission should not cover? Please write them in the space below.
Again, the scope of the Disability Royal Commission should be broad and quality and safety of services provided to people with disability are critical.
We would tick the “YES” box and state in the “comments box” that “all aspects of quality and services should be covered regardless of who provides them and whether they are formal or informal.”
Question 7 – Missing in Action
We note that the survey does not include a “Question 7”.
Question 8 – Additional considerations? (Optional)
* Are there particular considerations the Commission should look into in regard to the specific needs, priorities and perspectives of people with disability, with respect to: age, gender, sexual orientation, intersex status, or race, acknowledging the particular situation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and culturally and linguistically diverse people with disability.
Please write any particular things you think need to be considered in the space below. (Optional)
In our view, this question provides one of the best opportunities in the survey to provide broader substantive comment on the DTOR.
We understand that survey participants have provided comment in the “comments box” on a range of issues, including as to the following matters.
- The importance of ensuring that the entire process, including the survey itself, is fully and universally accessible, including to people with intellectual, cognitive or communication disabilities, and that trauma informed practices are adopted at all stages leading up to and during the Royal Commission.
- In addition, consideration should be given to barriers for people with intellectual and communication disabilities in particular in accessing justice and rules and standards that may discriminate against or disadvantage them, both in terms of how the Royal Commission is conducted and in providing future guidance to governments in relation to legal claims by victims and redress.
- The focus of the Disability Royal Commission must not be only “forward looking” as is suggested in the DTOR and in the survey questions. The Disability Royal Commission must expressly include investigation of current and historical abuse, aimed at ensuring justice and redress for victims. This should mirror the focus and terms of reference for the Royal Commission for Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
- Commissioners must be given broad powers to compel the provision of evidence, including from participants and perpetrators who may have entered into legal settlements and non-disclosure agreements in relation to violence, abuse, neglect, exploitation and related matters that may be the subject of inquiry by the Royal Commission.
- The DTOR should expressly contemplate States and Territories issuing separate instruments to appoint the Commissioners under State and Territory laws to conduct the Disability Royal Commission. The DTOR suggest limited and qualified support from the States and Territories, which is described to be “in-principle”and in effect means State and Territory support “depends upon the detail” of the DTOR.
- The definition of ‘disability’ in the DTOR is inadequate. Given that the preamble in the DTOR refers to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in reference to the human rights of people with disabilities, the same broad ‘social model of disability’ based definition as used by the CRPD should be utilised for the Disability Royal Commission.
- At least a majority of Commissioners appointed must have lived experience of disability as well as expertise in relation to the range issues that will be faced by the Royal Commission.
- The Royal Commission must be fully funded to the extent required to ensure its on-going wide scope and effectiveness.
- Finally, we would express concern about the fact that the consultation for the DTOR is by survey only aimed at gathering primarily quantitative rather than fullsome qualitative data, which is essential for a consultation of this nature.
Question 9 – Particular considerations in relation to care and support (Optional)
* Are there any particular considerations the Royal Commission should look into or consider with regard to the role families, carers, advocates, the workforce and others play in providing care and support to people with disability?
This question allows for broader and more substantive comment in the “comments box”. In our view, some of the considerations that should be considered include “cultural attitudes, prejudice and discrimination”, including by families, that underpin responses to people with disability, not just in providing care and support but more broadly in denying access, participation and fundamental human rights. We believe that the Royal Commission should examine in particular the widespread use of segregated models of care and support, including in education and employment, their historical basis, how this sits with evidence-based approaches and fundamental human rights and how these models increase the risk of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability.
Question 10 – Additional Areas for Draft Terms of Reference (Optional)
* Are there any other additional areas that you think should be included in the Terms of Reference for this Royal Commission?
Although this is an “optional” question, it is an important one. As stated above and explained in our comment “Words Matter – Draft Terms of Reference for Royal Commission Released for Consultation”, we believe that is critical that the DTOR expressly include investigation of current and historical abuse, aimed at ensuring justice and redress for victims, and mirroring the focus and terms of reference for the Royal Commission for Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. In this regard, the focus of the Disability Royal Commission must not be only “forward looking”, as is suggested in the DTOR and in the survey questions.
We would also like to see a focus on how Federal and State legal and policy frameworks promote, enable or permit violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability including by preferencing, including through funding bias, disability segregated and congregated models of service delivery. Despite Australia’s ratification of the CRPD, the most authoritative statement on the human rights of people with disability, there has been a general failure to align legal and policy frameworks with international human rights obligations in respect of people with disability.
Question 11 – Supports for participation (Optional)
* Which of the following supports do you think are most needed to support people with disability, their families, carers and advocates during this Royal Commission? Please select any that apply: Support to help people make a submission in the Royal Commission Counselling or other psychological support; Legal advice or support; Call centre to answer questions about the Royal Commission; Support to attend hearings or community forums; Accessible technology or equipment; Translation and interpreting, including Auslan, captioning and other communication technology or support; Other support to make the Commission accessible (personal support); Other (please specify).
This question seeks to gather information about support needs. Please tick any that apply and provide any additional supports required in the “comments box”. We would also take the opportunity to write in the box that there should be no ranking of supports as suggested by the request to state which supports are “most needed”. We believe that the entire process needs to be universally designed to be accessible to all Australians. We would also suggest that trauma informed support and practices should be adopted at all stages.
Question 12 – About you
* About you
This question seeks to gather information about who the survey participants are. It does not ask for names but it asks for information such as postcode, age, gender, basis for interest in the Royal Commission, etc.
______________
We hope the above information is helpful to anyone considering whether or not to participate in the Disability Royal Commission consultation survey, and if so, the types of matters they may consider raising.
Please let us know of any other matters that you would include.
[Cover photo © Samuel Zeller]
Thank you for visiting our website. You can also keep up with our mission by liking our Facebook page or following us on Twitter @StartingWJulius