Policy Invisibility: Indigenous Disability

 

O jest unseen, inscrutable, invisible,

As a nose on a man's face, or a weathercock on a steeple!

Two Gentlemen of Verona, Act 2, scene 1

 

 

The Disability Royal Commission has released an Interim Report on its activities over the past 18 months (link here).

 

The Commission issued an Indigenous Issues Paper in June 2020 (link here) which suggested that the Commission is interested in understanding Indigenous disability issues through the lens of a life course approach. To my mind, an eminently sensible approach.

 

The Interim Report includes no recommendations, but lays out key issues that have come to the Royal Commission’s attention to date. The final report is due by April 2022. The report includes a chapter on First Nations disability issues (pp 447- 478). I recommend interested readers look at the chapter as I have not attempted to summarise all it contains. The chapter canvasses issues such as the concept of disability within Indigenous communities; quantitative measures of disability; the comparative invisibility of Indigenous disability in public policy discussions; and an extensive discussion of the experiences of First Nations people with disability across a range of contexts.

 

In relation to levels of disability, the Report states (p 451):

Data recently updated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that more than one-third of all First Nations peoples (38 per cent) have disability. The data shows that more than one in five First Nations children have disability (22 per cent) and almost half of all First Nations adults (48 per cent), aged 18 years and over, have disability. [Footnote removed].

 

In relation to public policy invisibility, the Commission has this to say in relation to the recent National Agreement on Closing the Gap:

A 2015 Australian Human Rights Commission report, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice and native title report, emphasised a need to elevate disability in the policy discussions concerning First Nations peoples. The report noted that disability had been long overlooked, further marginalising First Nations people with disability and ignoring their distinct needs. This was followed by a call from a coalition of First Nations peak organisations in the Redfern Statement for the Australian Government to do more to meet the needs of First Nations people with disability.

The Closing the Gap report 2020 does not specify disability as a priority area, despite persistent calls to include it. Disability does not sit alongside the existing indicators in the framework as a standalone target monitoring child mortality, early childhood education, school attendance, literacy and numeracy, Year 12 attainment, employment and life expectancy….

… The new Closing the Gap National Agreement (National Agreement), which was announced at the end of July this year, presented an opportunity to elevate the rights of First Nations people with disability.

The Royal Commission welcomes the shared responsibility across all governments under the National Agreement, including the references to disability status and the importance of data across some of the 16 new target areas. However, the Royal Commission notes that the changes have not included a stand-alone target on disability…

… The long awaited inclusion of disability in the Closing the Gap Framework under the new National Agreement may be considered by some as taking a staged approach to elevating disability as a key area of concern and investment. The strategy focuses on building up First Nations disability services and advocacy providers and improving the capture of data on people with disability by targeting some key areas aimed at improving outcomes.

It is welcome news that the National Agreement is being presented as a living document, open to change as new information and considerations come to light. In regards to this, the work of the Royal Commission will be a source of information to enlighten and enliven discussion regarding content on disability in the National Agreement. [footnotes excluded].

 

Reading between the lines, one would have to say that the Commission will clearly be giving serious consideration to recommending that the National Agreement be amended to include a specific target on disability.  Of course, the framing of an appropriate and effective target is not necessarily easy or straightforward. Depending on how the target is framed will inevitably influence both policy frameworks and funding allocations, so it is to be hoed that the Commission gives some particular attention to this issue if it is going to go down this path (a path I would support).

 

In an ideal world, NIAA would already be active on issues of both reducing and addressing Indigenous disability given its impact on Indigenous life opportunities and the widespread prevalence of disability within First Nations. The prospect of a set of Royal Commission recommendations within the next two years is just an added incentive. However, there is little indication that NIAA sees a role for itself in this area. A search of its website found just one document related to disability, an evaluation of the NDIS East Arnhem Co-design project (link here). This report, issued in June 2018, was heavily qualified and constrained by its focus on an early stage project, and it recommended further evaluation work two years on (ie now). There is no indication that this is happening.

 

Apart from ad hoc project evaluations, what is required is for NIAA to build a capability to add value in necessary and important policy discussions going forward. These include the effectiveness of the NDIS, the potential negotiation of a new disability target in the Closing the Gap domain, the policy oversight of whole of government activities in relation to Indigenous disability, and the support of key Indigenous disability service providers operating in extremely challenging circumstances across the breadth of the nation.

 

Disabled First Nationals citizens and their families deserve no less.

 

Finally, for those interested in issues related to Indigenous disability policy, I recommend the websites of the First Peoples Disability Network (link here) and the Machado Joseph Disease Foundation (link here).