7. People with disability

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000185; Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000176.

7.1As of August 2024, the average redress payment for people with disability was $93325.[1]

7.2Some redress applicants who identified as having a disability also indicated as being First Nations. Therefore, the figures shown in this chapter may also be counted in figures shown in Chapter 6.

7.3Redress support services said that most of their clients acquired their disability later in life.[2]

• However, People With Disability Australia (PWDA) said that people who had a disability as a child were ‘more likely to have been both physically and sexually abused than children without disability’.[3] PWDA added that psychosocial disabilities are ‘often acquired later in life and can be in response to adverse childhood experiences’.[4]
• Australian Catholic Redress Limited said that the Scheme does not define what disability means and ‘there is often confusion’ around whether the disability is linked to the applicant’s early life experiences or from becoming aged.[5]
• While redress applicants might say on their application that they have a disability, the Scheme does not define what disability means.[6]
  4. We heard from an anonymous survivor who said their disability was caused by sexual abuse when they were an infant. They said the abuse impacted their brain and nervous system development ‘and has negatively impacted every aspect of my life’.[7]

Barriers to accessing redress

7.5In a discussion paper circulated at the beginning of the inquiry, the Committee suggested that applications from people with disability could be fewer than expected.

7.6We wanted to know why it can be challenging for people living with disability to apply for redress. Three main reasons were given:

• Limited awareness of the Scheme.
• The Scheme is too hard to access.
• Some people with disability are segregated from the community.[8]
  7. There are a wide range of disabilities with different individual impacts, which can be complex for accessibility, noting that ‘each person’s lived experience is different’.[9] For example:
• PWDA said that women with disability can experience barriers such as ‘cost, social isolation, mental health challenges, stigma, religious and cultural practices, domestic and family violence and caring responsibilities.’[10]
• The Australian Autism Alliance said that clinicians, advocates, support services and public servants (people who work for the government) often do not understand autism and people with concomitant sensory-communication needs.[11]
  8. Redress support services said that of their clients with disability, most have post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)[12] or a psychosocial disability because of things that included:
• Childhood sexual abuse and other adverse childhood experiences, such as being separated from family.
• Extreme beatings and torture.
• Living conditions and poverty.[13]
  9. Many redress applicants are more than 70 years old and some are affected by dementia or have a declining capacity to make decisions.[14] Some people have vision or hearing impairments, which may make communication more challenging.[15]

Right to equal access

7.10knowmore noted that Australia has ratified (or agreed to) an international treaty called the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.[16]

7.11The treaty says that there should be:

• Effective and equal access to justice for people with disability.
• Promoting training for staff working in justice roles.[17]
  12. knowmore advised us that this applies to the National Redress Scheme (the Scheme). knowmore said that the Scheme is ‘not currently meeting these obligations’ and that this is ‘systemic… impacting all stages of the redress process’.[18] knowmore said that people with disability applying for redress should have equal access, equal treatment and timely responses when reasonable adjustments are requested.[19]
  13. PWDA said that survivors with severe disability experience ‘insurmountable’ barriers when applying redress. PWDA said that this is ‘counter to the right to accessibility’ in the treaty.[20]
  14. We heard that the Scheme’s staff and independent decision makers should be made aware of how disability can create communication barriers.[21]

Reasonable adjustments

7.15We often heard that the Scheme needs to be flexible and make reasonable adjustments to improve access for people with disability. We were told that redress should be accessible, inclusive and based on human rights.[22]

7.16People with disability, especially people with severe intellectual or cognitive disability, may not understand that what happened to them was wrong.[23] Some people with disability cannot read, write or use a computer. Possibly, some cannot express themselves or receive information.[24] Experience and training are key to working with people living with disability or mental health issues.[25]

7.17We heard that more should be done to educate people with disability about their rights and what constitutes abuse.[26] Micah Projects said that information about the Scheme and the application form should be accessible for survivors with a variety of disabilities.[27] PWDA said:

• While ‘new barriers to access’ are constantly arising, they found that with some advocacy, the Scheme could be ‘flexible and provide reasonable adjustments on a case-by-case basis’.[28]
• Survivors with disability and redress support services may not realise that they can advocate for reasonable adjustments.[29]
• Some applicants with severe disability ‘cannot describe what has happened’ and ‘nor can they express consent’. This means that they will need someone to lodge a redress application on their behalf.[30]
  18. Some people with disability might be unable to understand the redress process without someone to help them.
• PWDA said that face-to-face services are ‘much better… than trying to communicate by phone or online’. PWDA suggested that the best way to know that a person understands is to be present with them.
• While the Scheme tried to increase support for people in rural or regional areas, PWDA said that ‘we still find that it’s often not face-to-face’.[31]

Support services and their access to institutions

7.19People with disability may continue to live in homes provided by the same institution responsible for their abuse.[32]

7.20We heard that some service providers may engage in ‘gatekeeping’ to control access to information about redress reaching people living in settings such as group homes.[33]

7.21PWDA observed that people fear ‘some sort of fallout or retribution’ from naming that institution.[34] We heard that PWDA had ‘mixed success’ gaining access to institutions to offer independent help to potential redress applicants.[35] Micah Projects suggested that some disability institutions are ‘not engaging with the Scheme and passing on information’ to their clients.[36]

7.22PWDA suggested 3 strategies:

• More funding for support services that are ‘skilled at engaging with people with disability’.
• Government departments should use their influence to ensure information about the Scheme is available to people living in closed settings (such as prisons, group homes and boarding houses).
• A public education campaign aimed at people with disability.[37]
  23. Micah Projects suggested targeted awareness focused on:
• Aged care providers, carers and families of survivors with disability.
• Disability support services and National Disability Insurance Scheme area coordinators.
• Peer groups.
• Public trustees and public guardians.[38]

Accessing counsellors

7.24PWDA and knowmore said that counselling services can be inaccessible to people with disability and are not meeting expectations.[39]

7.25Examples included:

• Information about counsellors being dependent on the ability to access and read a website.
• Potentially, no counsellors are available in rural and regional areas. Talking to a counsellor over the phone or online can be unsuitable solutions.
• Counsellors may be reluctant to take on clients with highly complex needs and diagnoses.
• There is a ‘general shortage’ of counsellors who specialise in working with trauma survivors.
• Counsellors who do specialise in trauma ‘are not always skilled in working with people with disability’, which can ‘considerably’ limit counselling options.[40]
  26. The Australian Autism Alliance said the Scheme should provide non-verbal psychological care, such as art therapy, music therapy and assistance animals.[41]
  27. Micah Projects said that highly skilled AUSLAN (Australian sign language) interpreters may be needed to help during counselling.[42]

Informal carers

7.28Some people with disability have to rely on family members to keep records about their lives, which could help corroborate events in a redress application.[43]

7.29Relationships Australia said that some victims and survivors are unaware about options to get help completing their redress application, including a nominee. Because a person can only apply to the Scheme once, the consequences of making mistakes are ‘very grave’.[44]

7.30The South Australian Office of the Public Advocate observed that many adults with intellectual disability may be successfully living with informal support from family members.[45]

• The Office said that this will not be enough for the Scheme to recognise a family member to be a legal nominee who can accept or decline a redress offer.
• Consequently, guardianship or administration orders are created so that a person can have a legal nominee help them with redress.[46]
  31. The Office said that this situation ‘creates yet another barrier for people with intellectual disability accessing redress’ and proposed that informal arrangements should be recognised.[47]
  32. Relationships Australia said that blocking informal carers creates barriers to accessing redress for people with disability and advocated for carers to be included in the redress process.[48]
  33. The Women’s Cottage said it was troubled to hear that Scheme staff are ‘contacting applicants who have asked to be contacted through their nominee.’[49]
• As of August 2024, 16% of redress applicants have an active nominee arrangement.[50]
  34. We heard that the process to become an assistance nominee takes 4 to 6 weeks, depending on mail.[51]

Footnotes

[1]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000178.

[2]The Women’s Cottage, Submission 12, p. 1; Loddon Campaspe Multicultural Services, Submission 24, p. 9.

[3]People With Disability Australia (PWDA), Submission 13, p. 3. See also: knowmore, Submission 14, p. 27.

[4]PWDA, Submission 13, p. 2.

[5]Australian Catholic Redress Limited, Submission 25, p. 7.

[6]Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 5.

[7]Name withheld, Submission 51, p. 2.

[8]Micah Projects, Submission 4, p. 1; Relationships Australia, Submission 10, p. 8; PWDA, Submission 13, p.3; PWDA, Submission 13.2, pp. 2–3; Australian Catholic Redress Limited, Submission 25, p. 7.

[9]Karen Kobier, PWDA, Committee Hansard, 12 September 2023, p. 1.

[10]PWDA, Submission 13.2, p. 2.

[11]Australian Autism Alliance, Submission 46, p. 12.

[12]Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 6.

[13]The Women’s Cottage, Submission 12, p. 1; PWDA, Submission 13, pp. 2–3; Tuart Place, Submission 17, p.6; Care Leavers Australasia Network, Submission 22, p. 3.

[14]Associate Professor Linda Steele and Kate Swaffer, Submission 3, p. 1; Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 6.

[15]Karen Kobier, PWDA, Committee Hansard, 12 September 2023, p. 1. See also: Loddon Campaspe Multicultural Services, Submission 24, p. 9.

[16]‘Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ (entered into force 3 May 2008), United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 2515, p. 3.

[17]knowmore, Submission 14, p. 30.

[18]knowmore, Submission 14, p. 30.

[19]knowmore, Submission 14, p. 32.

[20]PWDA, Submission 13, p. 8.

[21]Micah Projects, Submission 4, p. 5.

[22]Associate Professor Linda Steele and Kate Swaffer, Submission 3, p. 1; PWDA, Submission 13, pp. 7–8. See also: Australian Autism Alliance, Submission 46, p. 15.

[23]South Australian Office of the Public Advocate, Submission 1, p. 11.

[24]South Australian Office of the Public Advocate, Submission 1, p. 9.

[25]Loddon Campaspe Multicultural Services, Submission 24, p. 9.

[26]South Australian Office of the Public Advocate, Submission 1, p. 11.

[27]Micah Projects, Submission 4, p. 2; Survivors and Mates Support Network (SAMSN), Submission 6, p. 3.

[28]Karen Kobier, PWDA, Committee Hansard, 12 September 2023, p. 1.

[29]Karen Kobier, PWDA, Committee Hansard, 12 September 2023, p. 1.

[30]PWDA, Submission 13, pp. 7–8.

[31]Karen Kobier, PWDA, Committee Hansard, 12 September 2023, p. 2.

[32]Micah Projects, Submission 4, p. 2.

[33]PWDA, Submission 13, p. 8. See also: knowmore, Submission 14, p. 29.

[34]Karen Kobier, PWDA, Committee Hansard, 12 September 2023, p. 3.

[35]Karen Kobier, PWDA, Committee Hansard, 12 September 2023, p. 3.

[36]Micah Projects, Submission 4, p. 2.

[37]PWDA, Submission 13, p. 4.

[38]Micah Projects, Submission 4, p. 5.

[39]PWDA, Submission 13, p. 9; knowmore, Submission 14, pp. 32–33.

[40]PWDA, Submission 13, p. 9.

[41]Australian Autism Alliance, Submission 46, p. 4.

[42]Micah Projects, Submission 4, p. 6.

[43]South Australian Office of the Public Advocate, Submission 1, p. 8.

[44]Relationships Australia, Submission 10, p. 9.

[45]South Australian Office of the Public Advocate, Submission 1, p. 12.

[46]South Australian Office of the Public Advocate, Submission 1, p. 12.

[47]South Australian Office of the Public Advocate, Submission 1, p. 12.

[48]Relationships Australia, Submission 10, pp. 8–9.

[49]The Women’s Cottage, Submission 12, p. 3.

[50]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000180.

[51]Blue Knot Foundation, Supplementary Submission 11.1, p. 1.