Women with Disabilities Australia (WWDA) is a national voice for the needs and rights of women with disabilities and a national force to improve the lives and life chances of women with disabilities. The objectives of Women with Disabilities Australia (WWDA) are:
As stated in the issues paper and terms of reference on this review, the review is focusing on whether the objectives of the DDA are being met.
This submission will focus on what those objectives are and how they have affected women with disabilities.
It is not our role however to do research and analysis for those doing the review and therefore references for reports and articles with further information will be listed rather than summarised.
It is also relevant to note that there is not a lot of statistical data available in regards to women with disabilities and how they are experiencing discrimination, so there is a significant amount of anecdotal evidence that is not backed up by statistical data.
This does not lessen the importance of this evidence, but rather shows the reality of the discrimination experienced by women with disabilities in our society.
The objects of the DDA are:
a) to eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination against persons on the ground of disability in the areas of:
b) to ensure, as far as practicable, that people with disabilities have the same rights to equality before the law as the rest of the community; and
c) to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle that people with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the community.
(Source: Disability Discrimination Act 1992, s. 3.)
In general the promise that the DDA held to improve participation and overcome social and economic disadvantage for people with disabilities has not eventuated for women with disabilities. However it still has important symbolic value for women with disabilities and provides women with a sense of legitimacy and protection when arguing for their rights within society. Even if the detail of the Act is not known and the mechanisms for complaint are not used, many women with disabilities know there is something that says they have 'rights'.
Women with disabilities are, from the government record, one of the most marginalised and disadvantaged groups in Australia. Analysis of data available from a variety of sources, gives us the following information about women with disabilities in Australia:
Attached to this Submission is a copy of a recent report published by Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) entitled "There is no justice - THERE'S JUST US" - The Status of Women with Disabilities in Australia. This Report, published in June 2002, discusses definitions and models of disability. It outlines the demographic data available that compares women with disabilities with men with disabilities, and women in general in relation to key socio-economic factors. The Report documents the major social and economic issues confronting women with disabilities based on the most recent data and research literature available, and also looks at the exclusion of women with disabilities from both the disability and women's movements. The Report also outlines the need for a specifically funded national peak body for women with disabilities in the context of the status of women with disabilities in Australia. This context includes the relative absence of research, data collection and policy development to improve the social and economic status of women with disabilities and the historical neglect of the skills and abilities of women with disabilities by governments, industry and the community as a whole.
The use of a complaints based mechanism to eliminate discrimination presupposes a number of factors, most specifically education and access to information. Women with disabilities are probably the most marginalised group in our community with generally low education, low socio-economic status, limited access to information etc. Add to this the fear of incurring costs and lack of support particularly from women (see 5.6), and it is understandable why it is hard for women with disabilities to make complaints. DDA does not cover discrimination in the form of domestic violence etc. It continues to maintain a separation between the public and the private sphere.
For women the DDA assumes that men and women have equal access to the law which research has shown to be far from the case. Removal of HREOC's powers to undertake hearings of complaint cases that could not be conciliated has compounded this situation. Women with disabilities are more intimidated by the fact that cases have to be heard by the Federal Court of Australia - as costs can be awarded against them. Women who are dependent on their partners will not have access to legal aid.
Reduced funding to the Commission and Disability Unit is hampering the ability to achieve the objectives of the DDA. This is most obvious in the lack of public education campaigns undertaken by the disability unit. Education on the DDA is given to community and disability groups and it is only people with disabilities who have access to these groups who are then gaining this information. Apart from the initial hype that accompanied the DDA there has been very little in terms of public advertising or campaigns. Women with disabilities are less likely to access services and therefore less likely to gain this knowledge and education.
The abolition of the position of the Disability Discrimination Commissioner (the first and only commissioner was a woman with a disability) was a powerful reminder to women with disabilities that their views would no longer count and that commitment to social justice for people with disabilities is no longer a priority. This is compounded by the fact that the Acting Disability Commissioner already has another portfolio.
The reasonable accommodation provision of the DDA differentially affects women compared with men. Since the burden of reasonable accommodation is required to be met by the individual employers or service providers it is to easy for them to claim unjustifiable hardship. This tends to exacerbate the documented discrepancies in levels of training and education between men and women with disabilities. The reality is that women with disabilities are less likely to be employed or to be seen as employable.
Although there are people with disabilities employed in the Disability Rights Unit of HREOC, there are no women with disabilities employed and this means the Commission is not seen to represent women with disabilities.
No statistics are kept regarding the number of complaints by women with disabilities which means that it is difficult to judge the benefits that the DDA has had for women.
Looking at the current state and federal budgets, there is still the ongoing situation of need for services not being met by the service system. This leads to people with disabilities competing against each other for limited resources by coming up with the most horrific sob stories to be funded for essential services. Then there is the difference between people who acquire traffic injuries and receive compensation and care (more men than women) compared to people who have disabilities from birth and age (probably more women than men) who are reliant on the 'welfare' system for their support needs, and who are the group with the most unmet needs. This systemic discrimination is not covered by the DDA.
There is a wide range of anecdotal evidence that shows that women with disabilities are still experiencing discrimination everyday. For example:
Women with disabilities should be thought of as a not insignificant consumer group and businesses are missing out on their custom if they continue to discriminate. For every woman with a disability, there are family members and friends who may also factor access into their decision not to use particular businesses and services. For these reasons it is also in the interest of community business precincts to have a general policy of access. There is also a wealth of skills and experience amongst women with disabilities that is currently an untapped resource.
It seems that the only effective way that change is happening is through the complaints procedures that is on an individual case-by-case basis and does not address more systemic needs.
The DDA does not go far enough in actually setting up mechanisms to ensure that the access actually does happen when there are renovations to buildings; that job descriptions and interviews in employment situations are equitable; that potential tenants with disabilities are being given a fair go; that the things the DDA stands for actually do happen in society.
People with disabilities are never sure who is responsible for monitoring the particular aspects of the DDA relevant to them at the time. People with disabilities need to know who to speak to, to get changes to happen before it reaches the point where a formal complaint is the only solution and when it may be too late to make changes because of "unjustifiable hardship".
The following resources are all available on the WWDA website which can be found at:
http://www.wwda.org.au/papers.htm
WWDA Acceptance Speech to the National Human Rights Award (2001)
On December 10, 2001, Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) was awarded the prestigious
National Human Rights Award (Community Category) by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
Helen Meekosha, WWDA President, accepted the Award at a function in Sydney. This is a transcript of
WWDA's acceptance speech.
'In/Different Health: Rethinking Gender, Disability and Health'- By Helen Meekosha (2001)
A Keynote Address presented by Helen Meekosha for Women With Disabilities Australia to the
4th Australian Women's Health Conference, held in Adelaide, February 2001. The paper examines, amongst other
things, what is disability?; the position of women with disabilities in Australian society;
prenatal testing and selective abortion; voluntary euthanasia; health policy models, and more.
The paper also looks at what disability can teach the women's health movement.
'Going Inclusive: Access to Health Care for Women with Disabilities'- By Keran Howe and Carolyn Frohmader (2001)
A paper presented by Keran Howe for Women With Disabilities Australia to the 4th Australian Women's Health Conference,
held in Adelaide, February 2001. The paper examines the status of women with disabilities in Australia,
and looks at a number of solutions to address the myriad of issues women with disabilities face.
'Changing Discourses of Disability and Human Rights in Australia'- By Helen Meekosha (2000)
'Disability' has become a term embedded in a number of competing discourses, each of which have an institutional
determination - either formal or informal. The critical interface lies between medical, individualised and
social discourses. The conflict at this interface is revealed in the struggle over human rights for and by people
with disabilities. In 2000 a new national Action Plan on human rights is being devised by the Australian federal government,
in an environment of governmental hostility to human rights and UN conventions. This paper explores the power relations of
disability discourses through competing interpretations of interests and issues in the human rights field.
'Women, Gender and 'Disability' - Historical and Contemporary Intersections of "Otherness" - by Della Perry and Ruth Keszia Whiteside (1995 & 2000)
Working in an area which is considered to be about something called "disability", poses considerable
challenges for any person who wishes to reflect upon the kinds of cultural and historical determinants which
underwrite such a concept. Who or what has decided, and still decides, upon the allocation of one person to the 'able'
category, and another to the 'dis' -abled category? Although we will claim that these simple terms have most often appeared
as obscuring, and in denial of the complex nature and experience of any person, we will also consider them as powerful
ideologies, influencing and informing who people think and feel they are or ever can be. Some people would suggest that
we have neutral measurements and criteria which can objectively indicate 'intelligence', as quantifiable and as
something 'real'. Whether one believes or not, that intelligence testing measures anything at all, we must also ask if
any kind of 'evidence' expresses something fundamental enough about a person, to confer upon them a totalising and
representative label - like that of 'normal', or 'genius', or 'disabled'. To unravel some of these ideas and questions,
we will in this paper, focus upon the historical construction of the idea or concept of 'intellectual disability'.
We would like to stress however, that most versions and varieties of disability are not mutually exclusive and that
the general idea of 'disability' as an homogenising label, (informing as powerfully as it reflects individual and
social experience), is always implicated in our discussion. Likewise, the category of 'woman', as determined by
particular and essential qualities, (regardless of whether these are understood as biological or cultural in nature),
will be considered as often intertwined and enmeshed with concepts about 'disability'. That these determinations and their
combinations, are not accidental, arbitrary, natural or self-evident, but reflect particular social and political
interests, is the central theme of this paper.
'Disability and Human Rights'- by Helen Meekosha (1999)
For many people with disabilities, Australia, at the end of the millennium, is experienced as a war zone.
At a time when citizenship is a catch-cry in public debate, disabled Australians are effectively denied many
of the simple rights their fellows take as given. This brief paper focuses on the processes which constrain and
restrict the access to basic rights of disabled people. Human Rights are provided not solely in legislation, but
most directly through services and activities in the community. When these ignore, deny or exclude disabled people
no legislation is sufficient.
Women With Disabilities Australia
PO Box 605, Rosny Park
Tasmania, 7018, Australia
Phone: + 61 3 62448288
Fax: + 61 3 62448255
email: wwda@wwda.org.au
Executive Director: Carolyn Frohmader
Office Hours: Monday through Friday 9.00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m
I, IAN CAMPBELL, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, under Parts 2 and 3 of the Productivity Commission Act 1998 and in accordance with the Commonwealth Government's Legislation Review Schedule, hereby refer the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) and the Disability Discrimination Regulations 1996 ("the legislation") to the Productivity Commission for inquiry and report within 12 months of the date of receipt of this reference. The Commission is to hold hearings for the purpose of the Inquiry.
2. The Productivity Commission is to report on the appropriate arrangements for regulation, taking into account the following:
a) the social impacts in terms of costs and benefits that the legislation has had upon the community as a whole and people with disabilities, in particular its effectiveness in eliminating, as far as possible, discrimination on the ground of disability, ensuring equality between people with disabilities and others in the community, and promoting recognition and acceptance of the rights of people with disabilities;
b) any parts of the legislation which restrict competition should be retained only if the benefits to the community as a whole outweigh the costs and if the objectives of the legislation can be achieved only through restricting competition;
c) without limiting the matters that may be taken into account, in assessing the matters in (a) and (b), regard should be had, where relevant, to:
d) the need to promote consistency between regulatory regimes and efficient regulatory administration, through improved coordination to eliminate unnecessary duplication;
e) compliance costs and the paper work burden on small business should be reduced where feasible.
3. In making assessments in relation to the matters in (2) the Productivity Commission is to have regard to the analytical requirements for regulation assessment by the Commonwealth, including those set out in the Competition Principles Agreement and the Government's guidelines on regulation impact statements. The Report of the Productivity Commission should:
a) identify the nature and magnitude of the social (including social welfare, access and equity matters), environmental or other economic problems that the legislation seeks to address;
b) ascertain whether the objectives of the DDA are being met, including through analysis and, as far as reasonably practical, quantification of the benefits, costs and overall effects of the legislation upon people with disabilities, in particular its effectiveness in eliminating, as far as possible, discrimination on the ground of disability, ensuring equality between people with disabilities and others in the community, and promoting recognition and acceptance of the rights of people with disabilities;
c) identify whether, and to what extent, the legislation restricts competition;
d) identify relevant alternatives to the legislation, including non-legislative approaches;
e) analyse and, as far as reasonably practical, quantify the benefits, costs and overall effects of the alternatives identified in (d), including on, or in relation to, people with disabilities.
f) identify the different groups likely to be affected by the legislation and alternatives;
g) list the individuals and groups consulted during the review and outline their views, or reasons why consultation was inappropriate;
h) determine a preferred option for regulation, if any, in light of the factors set out in (2); and
i) examine mechanisms for increasing the overall efficiency of the legislation, including minimising the compliance costs and paper burden on small business, and, where it differs, the preferred option.
In undertaking the review, the Productivity Commission is to advertise nationally, consult with State and Territory Governments, key interest groups and affected parties (in particular, people with disabilities and their representatives) invite submissions from the public, and publish a draft report. To facilitate participation by people with disabilities, the Productivity Commission is to ensure that all hearings are held at accessible venues and that documentation and information distributed during the consultative and review processes including the draft and final reports, are available in accessible formats.
In undertaking the review and preparing its final report and associated recommendations, the Productivity Commission is to note the Government's intention to release the report and announce its responses to the review recommendations as soon as possible, with the response to be prepared by appropriate Ministers, including the Attorney-General.
IAN CAMPBELL
This site was developed by Carolyn Frohmader for Women With Disabilities Australia.