Acknowledgements and Disclaimer
Why Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) has made this Submission
Comment 1: The definitions of 'disability services' and 'quality of life'
Comment 4: Ministerial Council References
Comment 5: Definition of People with Disabilities
Comment 6: Commonwealth/State Relations
Comment 7: The Model of Disability Underpinning the Strategic Framework
Comment 9: Acknowledgement of the Self-Determination of People with Disabilities
Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) Inc. is a not-for-profit organisation constituted and driven by women with disabilities. Its members and managers are all women with disabilities. It also has many associate members, which include Australian and overseas banks, research institutes, community services, students, and others who are supporters of human rights for women with disabilities.
Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) is making this Submission, because women with disabilities disproportionately experience breaches of their human right to adequate health and community services. Where the Submission recommends changes to the Framework, it clearly evidences how they are practicable ones that significantly add to the Framework's efficacy.
Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) Inc. is a member-driven, independent body with no affiliations with any political party. Its members, Executive Officer and Committee of Management members are all women with disabilities. They have identified improvement of services for women with disabilities, as one of the organisation's policy priorities for 2003 to 2008.
Consequently, Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) is very committed to policy advocacy on the protection of the human right of women with disabilities to adequate disability support services. Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) Inc. has published this Submission to advance this policy advocacy. The organisation hopes that the Submission will be of value to women with disabilities; advocates; policy-makers; researchers; philanthropists; and members of industries, professions and other communities of interest.
This Paper provides the comments of Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) to the Tasmanian Government draft Disability Services Strategic Framework 2003-2008 (hereafter, the 'Strategic Framework'). The Tasmanian Government invited public submissions on this draft earlier this year.
Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) hopes that the Tasmanian Government will find the Submission a valuable reference in its deliberations on the Strategic Framework.
First and foremost, the Submission was developed because women with disabilities disproportionately experience breaches of their citizenship right to participate in decision-making processes, about many matters that fundamentally affect them, including disability support services. These breaches occur in all parts of Australian society, including local and state and federal government forums (Frohmader, 2002; Newell, 2002; Altman, 1998; Meekosha and Jakubowicz, 1996; Graycar and Morgan, 1990).
Second, one of the WWDA policy priorities for 2003 to 2008 is the improvement of the accessibility of adequate disability support services to women with disabilities. This priority was identified earlier this year by the organisation's large and diverse membership base, Committee of Management members and Executive Officer.
Consequently, Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) is very committed to policy advocacy on the Australian State providing services that preserve, protect and restore the human rights of women with disabilities.
Third, WWDA hopes that the Submission will be of value to women with disabilities; advocates; policy-makers; researchers; philanthropists; and members of industries, professions and other communities of interest.
Fourth, WWDA has achieved privileged access to the evidence that underpins policy advocacy for women with disabilities - like this Submission - because of its strong and multiple communication channels with women with disabilities and their supporters.
These ongoing communications yield rich data, not least because the members are women living with a wide range of disabilities, in a spectrum of circumstances. Similarly, the associate membership is comprised of a vast array of individuals, networks and organisations. They are located all over rural, regional and urban parts of Australia and the world.
The corporate associate members include financial institutions, research centres, municipal councils, medical services and other so-called 'mainstream' service providers. They are also bodies that are dedicated to particular marginalised groups. These include migrant resource centres; refuges for Indigenous women and children; health services; lobby groups for people who identify as queer; and others.
WWDA Submissions are also informed by WWDA's ongoing contacts with government and non-government organisations that may or may not be associate members. These organisations are ones that profoundly affect the rights of people with disabilities. The government ones include the Department of Communications, Arts and Information Technology; the Department of Family and Community Services; the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission; State and Territory agencies for health and community services; and local government authorities.
The non-government organisations encompass Disabled Peoples International; the National Justice Coalition for Women; the Australian Local Government Association; the (Victorian) Action for Disability in Ethnic Communities; trade unions; and professional associations.
WWDA is also sure to keep abreast of secondary evidence on issues that are highly pertinent to women with disabilities, such as the level and quality of disability support services accessible to women with disabilities. WWDA has already conducted much research and policy advocacy on service provision for women with disabilities and closely related matters (see www.wwda.org.au , generally).
(For more information on the aims and activities of Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA), please see Appendix 2 of this Submission.)
The comments are provided under each of the questions. Extracts from the Strategic Framework document are italicised. These include quotations of the Framework's passages, headings and consultation questions.
Further, the Introduction states that The Government of Tasmania is committed to ensure that the quality of life of all Tasmanians with disabilities continues to significantly improve.
Has the Government defined what 'quality of life' might mean for this population group and segments of it? Has it also defined what 'quality of life' might mean for those groups within this population that are significantly different from each other? If so, what indicators of this quality of life has Disability Services developed for the whole population and significantly different segments of it?
By 'significantly different' population segments, these comments mean groups with the group of people with disabilities that enjoy, on average, significantly different levels of and/or different promoters of, and/or different risks to, their health and well-being.
For example, some people have disabilities that affect the way they move. Therefore, the health and well-being of these people is highly contingent upon, among other things, governments making buildings physically accessible.
This is not so much the case for people with disabilities that do not dramatically affect their mobility. Their health and well-being is a function of other necessary changes to public goods and services.
Similarly, some people have disabilities that tend to be positively and highly associated with chronic ill-health. These people are more likely to need a health system that treats people with equal respect and dignity than people with disabilities who enjoy a low incidence of illness.
Of course, this is all to presume that the Strategic Framework authors might intend 'quality of life' to denote human health and well-being or a close equivalent. This is a reasonable presumption, given the currency of such definitions of 'quality of life'. These definitions have gained publicity via the World Health Organisation and other bodies that define health as the multiple dimensions of well-being, not simply the absence of illness (First International Conference on Health Promotion, 1986).
If the Framework authors intended a definition of this ilk, it would be most apt for the Framework to spell it out. This would be a fitting aid to the reader's grasp of the Framework. It would better enable the readers to grasp the Framework's conceptual basis.
The Introduction also says this about human rights law:
The Strategic Framework operates within a policy and legislative context that provides a safeguard to individuals' basic rights. The legislative framework includes the Commonwealth Disability Services Act (1986), the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act (1992), the Tasmanian Disability Services Act (1992), the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act (1998), the Tasmanian Guardianship and Administration Act (1995), the Tasmanian Health Complaints Act (1995) and the Tasmanian Mental Health Act (1996).
Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) suggests that the Strategic Framework should also state that the legal framework includes: the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (48/96 of 20 December 1993); the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons (1975); the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons (1971); the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966); the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) (see http://www.unhchr.ch).
It is pertinent to state this, because the Strategic Framework is explicitly linked to the Framework for Action to Achieve Social Justice for People with Disabilities in Tasmania', and the authors of the latter have clearly derived it - intentionally or not - from the human rights law specified in these international instruments. Accordingly, enumeration of these international instruments enhances the reader's understanding of the conceptual moorings of the Strategic Framework.
The Introduction also refers to the Tasmanian Government Report, Tasmanians Together. Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) (WWDA) recommends that these documents be hyperlinked in the electronic version of the Strategic Framework. Further, WWDA recommends attaching a hard copy of them to all the printed copies of the Strategic Framework. The hyperlinks and attachments will be very useful, aids to the reader. There should also be note in both versions on how to obtain copies in various formats, including Plain English ones; ones that are presented in ways that suit people with intellectual disabilities; ones for people with sight disabilities; and ones in languages other than English.
It seems important here to advise people where and when they can view updates on the development of the consultation strategy and the terms of reference, activities and membership of the Ministerial Advisory Council.
Please also ensure that the place where people can view these updates is not confined to the web-site. Please also provide contact telephone and TTY numbers so that people who need to use a medium other than the internet can peruse consultation strategy and Ministerial Council developments.
At this point of the Strategic Framework, it would also be useful to state whether the Council's consultation strategy will be consistent with the spirit and letter of the Tasmanian Government's Optimising Data Collection and Input from People With Disabilities (2001). In so stating, this document should be hyperlinked in the electronic version of the Strategic Framework and fully cited in the hard copies. There should also be note in both versions on how to obtain copies in various formats, including Plain English ones; ones that are presented in ways that suit people with intellectual disabilities; ones for people with sight disabilities; and ones in languages other than English.
This Framework applies to all people in Tasmania who have a 'disability' as defined by the Tasmanian Disability Services Act (1992) - namely a disability
It is unsurprising that the Disability Services Framework should use the definition of disability prescribed by the Disability Services Act. However, this definition has the potential to adversely ramify on people with disabilities.
This is because the Act's definition is one that, without any exceptions, limits the meaning of disability to disabilities that are, or are deemed likely to be, ones that have onset and onset permanently. This definition has the following grave problems.
First, it is wide open to interpretations that the Framework is not applicable to people with certain permanent disabilities that are not easily diagnosed and/or not well recognised by the medical profession. Such disabilities include, variations of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Myalgic Encephalopathy Syndrome and Gulf War Syndrome (Productivity Commission, 2003).
Second, it is increasingly difficult to determine with any certainty, wether a person's disabilities are likely to be permanent or not. This is because of the rapid pace of changes in medical technologies, including surgery techniques and pharmaceutical inventions. Third, if the Disability Services system shuts out people who are likely to be imminently disabled, then it will fail to prevent the onset of disabilities and to mitigate the severity of disabilities.
Consequently, Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) (WWDA) suggests that the Act's definition of disability be amended with a practicable and sustainable definition that is not vulnerable to problems (a) and (b). This definition can then be used in the Framework.
The amendment that WWDA proposes is a truncation of both the definition of disability declared by the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the definition in the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998. These definitions are, in semantic terms, exactly the same.
The Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 defines disability in this way:
disability, in relation to a person, means:
(a) total or partial loss of the person's bodily or mental functions; or
(b) total or partial loss of a part of the body; or
(c) the presence in the body of organisms causing disease or illness; or
(d) the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing disease or illness; or
(e) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of the person's body; or
(f) a disorder or malfunction that results in the person learning differently from a person without
the disorder or malfunction; or
(g) a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person's thought processes, perception
of reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour;
(part of Section 4, Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992.).
and includes a disability that:
(h) presently exists; orA viable definition for the Framework would be this one with subsections (i) and (k) excised,.
Subsections (i) and (k) refer to people who are not living with a disability or an imminent one. They respectively denote people who once lived with a disability; and people who are merely imputed to have a disability. Accordingly, these subsections are also inappropriate components of a definition pertaining to people who need disability support services.
Section 3 of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 defines disability as:
any of the following that presently exists, previously existed but no longer exists, may exist in the future, whether or not arising from an illness, disease or injury or from a condition subsisting at birth:
(a) a total or partial loss of the person's bodily or mental functions;
(b) total or partial loss of a part of the body;
(c) the presence in the body of organisms causing or capable of causing disease or illness;
(d) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of a person's body;
(e) disorder, malformation, malfunction or disfigurement that results in the person
learning differently from a person without the disorder, malformation, malfunction or disfigurement;
(f) a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person's thought processes, perceptions of
reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour;
(g) reliance on a guide-dog, wheelchair or other remedial or therapeutic device;
Similarly, this definition is one that fits the Framework, once one phrase is removed. This is previously existed but no longer exists.
A new challenge for disability services in Tasmania is the significant shift in the role of the Commonwealth Government and the impact it's policies are having at a State and Territory level on people with disabilities.
This applies particularly to the changing eligibility criteria for income support for people with disabilities and the marked scaling back in the provision of growth for accommodation and support services. Also the move towards case based funding for Commonwealth disability employment services has resulted in substantial numbers of people with high support needs no longer being able to access employment options. These clients are reverting to state funded day options programs.
There is a need for ongoing development with Commonwealth Agencies to ensure that the Commonwealth maintains an active role in provision of services for people with a disability and that effective service delivery is not hindered by issues of inadequate jurisdictional collaboration.
This wind-back in the Commonwealth Government's support for people with disabilities is one that it is very important to alert citizens about.
Consequently, it is worth lending some more substance, by including references to any Tasmanian Government publications covering what it is doing to implement 'ongoing development with Commonwealth Agencies…' and 'jurisdictional collaboration'. For example, is there a published paper on what the Tasmanian Government urged of the Commonwealth Government during the Commonwealth-State Disability Services Agreement negotiations?
Further, for this section to have substance, it must refer to how the Tasmanian Government is factoring this cost-shifting into its resource allocation decisions. That is, the Framework should enumerate the steps that the Tasmanian Government is taking to mitigate the adverse effects of the Commonwealth's under-investment.
In particular, it is important for the Framework to note whether the State Government is systematically measuring the adverse effects of the Commonwealth's under-investment on people with disabilities. If the Government is evaluating this, the Framework should specify how. It should also state which people with disabilities are being disadvantaged by the lack of Commonwealth investment and how.
In addition, the Framework should stipulate the strategies that the Government will implement to ensure State services are sufficiently resourced to meet the consequent increases in unmet service needs. This is imperative, given the serious shortfalls in disability services evidenced by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
If the Government did this, it would be meeting its Tasmania Together commitment to duly account for the Tasmania Together Goals in State budget decisions. This is so, especially with respect to those Goals that explicitly and clearly encompass the delivery of adequate services to disadvantaged minorities. The document names people with disabilities as one of these minorities.
Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) trusts that the Tasmanian Government believes that the most important consideration in the Commonwealth-State dialogue is that people with disabilities do not ultimately suffer from inadequate services, while governments argue over vertical fiscal imbalances. It is direly necessary for Tasmania to take the lead in these negotiations by placing the service needs of people with disabilities first. This would be both a demonstration of admirable leadership and one that substantially fulfils the Tasmania Together Goals.
The traditional model of disability focuses exclusively on how a person with a disability lacks the full spectrum of abilities that are supposed to be possessed by every human. (Newell, 2002; Jones and Marks, 1999). In the social model, humans experience disability as an impediment, partially or wholly because of human-made systems that disproportionately privilege people who are without disabilities for now, at the expense of people with disabilities (Newell, 2002; Jones and Marks, 1999).
Thus, the social model highlights that it is decision-makers' choices that often make disabilities disabling (Frohmader, 2002). Accordingly, the social model is highly pertinent to any framework that refers to the accessibility of services.
Accessibility is the degree to which services are shaped to equitably serve everyone they purport to serve, not only clients from privileged groups (Newell, 2002; Jones and Marks, 1999; Meekosha and Jakubowicz, 1996). Hence, it is especially important for the social model to be in the reader's mind, when the Framework refers to:
This is because, unless institutions comprehend how their structures exclude people with disabilities, they cannot even begin to transform into universally inclusive bodies (Newell, 2002; Jones and Marks, 1999; Meekosha and Jakubowicz, 1996).
It is necessary to underline this, because it is well-documented that governments, service providers and others often conflate the wishes and requirements of people with disabilities with those of their significant others and paid carers. It would be wrong to suggest that these desires and needs do not sometimes coincide. They often do. However, services and others must regard people with disabilities as self-determining, in order to respect their rights (Newell, 2002, Sawer, 1998).
The fact that people with disabilities are not wholly self-reliant is no justification for failing to prioritise their conceptions of what they need and want. This is because, all humans, even those with no disability, sometimes experience an inability to make certain decisions for themselves. That is, none of us is the Rational, Autonomous being envisage by the Enlightenment thinking. If this is acknowledged, it becomes difficult to - intentionally or unintentionally - dismiss a person with a disability as someone who cannot determine what they want and need.
This is a point worth labouring, because Enlightenment prescriptions about the extreme self-sufficiency of persons fundamentally pervade contemporary discourses about personhood, including service delivery discourses (Christman, 2003).
Accordingly, it is hard to overstate the importance of goading service providers and others to remember that they must allow and enable people with disabilities to specify for themselves their needs and wishes. This means service providers people should assimilate to the communication modes preferred by many people with disabilities, not those types of communication preferred by the service providers (Cattalini, 1993).
For instance, if a person with an intellectual disability has developed their own sign language, the people doing the consulting should learn this language or have it interpreted by someone who is proficient in it. This interpreter must be acceptable to the person with a disability.
This is only what is minimally required of the people doing the consulting to ensure that they do not impose the language system that they happen to prefer, at the expense of silencing people with disabilities (Marsh, 1999; Sawer, 1998; Tully, 1995; Derber, Schwartz and Magrass, 1990; First International Conference on Health Promotion, 1986; Larson, 1977).
Accordingly, Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) recommends that the Strategic Framework, associated documents and meetings meet the following accessibility guidelines:
the Commonwealth Disability Strategy: http://www.facs.gov.au/disability/cds/index.htm, particularly the Better Information and Communication Practices part: http://www.facs.gov.au/disability/cds/pubs/icp/icp_index.htm
the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission advisory note on web accessibility: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html
An authoritative interpretation of the latter reference can be found in Maguire v Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games [2001] EOC 93-123; [2001] EOC 93-124).
Altman, Dennis. 1998. Representation, public policy and AIDS. Paper to Academy of Social Sciences/ Reshaping Australian Institutions Workshop on Representation, Canberra, Australian National University, December 1998.
Cattalini, H. 1993. Access to Services for Women with Disabilities who are Subjected to Violence, (Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Office of the Status of Women, National Committee on Violence against Women). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Christman, John. 2003. 'Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy'. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2003 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2003/entries/autonomy-moral/ (accessed 1 December 2003).
Commonwealth of Australia. 2000. Commonwealth Disability Strategy. Canberra: Department of Family and Community Services.
Commonwealth of Australia. Disability Discrimination Act 1992. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Commonwealth of Australia. Race Discrimination Act 1975. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Department of the Attorney-General. Discussion Paper: DDA Standards on Commonwealth Government Information and Communications, http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/commonwealth/communications.htm (accessed 1 December 2003).
Derber, Charles, William A. Schwartz and Yale Magrass. 1990. Power in the Highest Degree: Professionals and the Rise of a New Mandarin Order. New York: Oxford University Press.
First International Conference on Health Promotion. 1986. Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, Ottawa, 21 November, The move towards a new public health, November 17-21, 1986 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, WHO/HPR/HEP/95.1.
Frohmader, Carolyn. 2002. There's No Justice - Just Us: The Status of Women With Disabilities In Australia. Hobart: Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA).
Graycar, R. and Morgan, J. 1990. The Hidden Gender of Law. Leichhardt, NSW: The Federation Press.
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. August 2002. World Wide Web Access: Disability Discrimination Act Advisory Notes, Version 3.2. Sydney: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html (accessed 1 December 2003).
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. 2001. Maguire v Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games [2001] EOC 93-123; [2001] EOC 93-124.
Jones, M. and Marks, L. 1999. 'Law and the Social Construction of Disability.' Disability, Diversability and Legal Change. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
Larson, Margali Sarfatti. 1977. The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Marsh, Ian. 1999. 'Opening Up the Policy Process.' In Marian Sawer and Sarah Miskin (eds). December 1999. Representation and Institutional Change: 50 Years of Proportional Representation in the Senate Papers on Parliament No. 34 Canberra: Department of the Senate, http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/pops/pop34/index.htm (accessed 1 December 2003).
Newell, Christopher. 2002. 'Disability Apartheid'. Aired on Australian Broadcasting Commission Radio National Program, Perspectives, on Wednesday 8 May 2002, http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/perspective/stories/s550758.htm (accessed 1 December 2003).
Productivity Commission. 2003. Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Draft Report. Melbourne: Commonwealth of Australia.
Sawer, Marian. 1998.`Mirrors, mouthpieces, mandates and men of judgement: concepts of representation in the Australian Federal Parliament'. Papers on Parliament, no. 31, June 1998.
Tasmanians. 2001. Tasmanians Together. Hobart: Tasmanian Government.
Tasmanian Crown. 1998. Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998. Hobart: Tasmanian Parliamentary Counsel.
Tasmanian Crown. 1992. Tasmanian Disability Services Act 1992. Hobart: Tasmanian Parliamentary Counsel.
Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services. 2003. October 2003 Draft of the Disability Services Strategic Framework 2003-2008. Hobart: Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services.
Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services. 2001. Optimising Data Collection and Input from People With Disabilities. Hobart: Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services.
Tully, James. 1995. Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an age of diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
United Nations. 1975. Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons. Geneva: United Nations.
United Nations. 1971. Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons. Geneva: United Nations.
United Nations 1966. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Geneva: United Nations.
United Nations. 1965. International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination. Geneva: United Nations.
United Nations. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Geneva: United Nations.
United Nations. 1993. Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities. Geneva: United Nations.
Williams, Melissa 1998. Voice, Trust and Memory: Marginal Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) is the peak organisation for women with all types of disabilities in Australia. It is a federating body of individuals and networks in each State and Territory of Australia and is made up of women with disabilities and associated organisations. The national secretariat is located in Tasmania, an island State of Australia. WWDA is run by women with disabilities, for women with disabilities. It is the only organisation of its kind in Australia and one of only a very small number internationally. WWDA is inclusive and does not discriminate against any disability. WWDA seeks to ensure opportunities in all walks of life for all women with disabilities. In this it aims to increase awareness of, and address issues faced by, women with disabilities in the community. WWDA seeks to ensure the advancement of education of society to the status and needs of women with disabilities in order to promote equity, reduce suffering, poverty, discrimination and exploitation of women with disabilities. WWDA is unique, in that it operates as a national disability organisation; a national women's organisation; and a national human rights organisation.
WWDA addresses disability within a social model, which identifies the barriers and restrictions facing women with disabilities as the focus for reform.
The aim of Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) is to be 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:
More information about Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) can be found on WWDA's website at: www.wwda.org.au
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.
(Sources: Anderson 1996; Frohmader 1998; WWDA 1998; WWDA 1999, ABS 1999, ABS 1993, AIHW 1998, AIHW 1999, AIHW 2000, Currie 1996, Brady and Grover 1997, Temby 1997, Cooper and Temby 1997, Horsley 1991, Binstead 1997, Rutnam, Martin-Murray and Smith 1999, Warburton et al 1999).
This site was developed by Carolyn Frohmader for Women With Disabilities Australia.