enable complaints to be heard in a no cost jurisdiction;
enable representative complaints by Disabled People’s and Advocacy Organisations; and
enable complaints regarding vilification and hate crimes on the basis of disability.
Article 6 — wOMEN WITH dISABILITIES
STATUS IN AUSTRALIA
Situation and Data about Girls and Women with Disability in Australia
Women with disability make up about 20.1 percent of the population of Australian women, equating to about two million people.37 It has been recognised that they face a “double disadvantage” due to the fact that “they are discriminated against on the basis of gender, and as people they are discriminated against on the basis of their disability”.38
There is little data or research about the specific situation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander girls and women with disability and girls and women with disability from non-English speaking backgrounds, but information reported in consultations strongly suggests that significant discrimination and disadvantage is faced by these groups.
In the 2006 Concluding Observations made by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee), concerns were expressed to Australia about the lack of reporting of data disaggregated by gender, sex and disability which would support effective analysis of legal and policy measures taken towards the practical realisation of equality for women.39 (See also Article 31)
In the 2010 Concluding Observations made by the CEDAW Committee, a number of concerns were expressed to Australia about the situation of girls and women with disability, particularly in relation to educational and employment disadvantage, lack of participation in leadership and decision-making positions, the high levels of violence and the ongoing practice of non-therapeutic sterilisation.40 The CEDAW Committee urged Australia, “in light of its recent ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the situation of women with disabilities in Australia”.41
Non-Therapeutic Sterilisation against Girls and Women with Disability (see Article 23)
Non-therapeutic sterilisation of people with disability is a particularly grave form of human rights abuse, and one that impacts particularly on girls and women with disability.42 The authorisation of non-therapeutic sterilisation is particularly relevant for breaches of Articles 6, 7, 17 and 23. In this report it is fully discussed under Article 23.
Violence (see Article 16)
Women with disability are more likely than men with disability and women without disability to be victims of all forms of violence.43 Furthermore, evidence indicates that the violence perpetrated against women with disability is more severe and is committed over an extended period.44
Discrimination and Inadequate Access to Healthcare (see Articles 23 and 25)
Women with disability continue to face significant inequality in regard to access to adequate healthcare. This is particularly the case in respect of sexual and reproductive healthcare. Gender specific health needs are invisible in mental health services and rarely acknowledged. These issues are largely canvassed in Articles 23 and 25.
Discrimination in Employment and Remuneration (see Articles 27 and 28)
In its 2010 Concluding Observations, the UN CEDAW Committee expressed its concern about “the limited access to job opportunities for women with disabilities”.45 Women with disability are significantly disadvantaged in employment in relation to access to jobs, in regard to remuneration for the work they perform and in the types of jobs they gain. These issues are raised in Articles 27 and 28.
Overrepresentation and Treatment in the Prison System (see Articles 13 and 15)
Women with disability are overrepresented in the prison system in Australia. In particular, the incarceration rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women with disability are higher than equivalent figures for men.
RECOMMENDATIONS Article 6
That Australia provides the necessary resources to the various collection and reporting agencies (particularly the Australian Bureau of Statistics) to improve the public availability of data disaggregated by gender, disability, age, ethnicity and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status.
That Australia commissions and funds a comprehensive assessment of the situation of girls and women with disability, in order to establish a baseline of disaggregated data against which future progress towards the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and CRPD rights can be measured.
In response to recommendations arising from the Universal Periodic Review, Australia’s National Human Rights Action Plan Exposure Draft (NHRAP Exposure Draft) includes an action to explore options for establishing a National Children’s Commissioner. However, it is unclear whether this action will include recognition of the particular susceptibility of children with disability to human rights violations. As at March 2012, the NHRAP Exposure Draft has not been finalised or endorsed by Australian governments.
Australia does not have a comprehensive national policy framework for children that articulates how the rights of children, including children with disability should be implemented, monitored and promoted across all jurisdictions. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee commented on this omission in 2005).46 The National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children is only focused on child protection against violence, abuse and neglect, not on all human rights issues. (See also Article 16)
The CRC Committee expressed its concern “about the paucity of information on disabled children, especially when it comes to data on disabled indigenous children, alternative care for children with disabilities and children with disabilities living in remote or rural areas”.47 The CRC Committee recommended that Australia “adopt a consistent national approach to the collection of data on children with disabilities”,48 however this has not occurred.
Disability Services Standards, which exist under disability services legislation in all States and Territories provide guiding principles for quality disability service provision. However, these Standards are adult focussed and do not address principles relating to the ‘best interests of the child’, the evolving capacity of children to make decisions or age-appropriate services and supports.
The principle that the best interests of the child be a primary consideration is part of Australian policy and law but is not always effectively applied, or is applied inconsistently to children and young people with disability in different States and Territories across Australia.
Human rights violations and the failure to consistently apply the ‘best interests’ principle based on human rights obligations will be considered further in relation to right to life of newborn children with disability (discussed in Article 10), the over representation and treatment of young people with disability in the juvenile justice system (discussed in Articles 13 and 15); restrictive practices used in schools (discussed in Article 15); violence, exploitation and abuse (discussed in Article 16); forced sterilisation of children with disability (discussed in Article 23); relinquishment of children with disability (discussed in Article 23) and the right to education (discussed in Article 24).
Freedom to Express Views Freely
Children and young people with disability are not provided with adequate opportunities or accessible information to assist them to express their views freely in matters that affect them. While there are some genuine examples of Australian governments engaging children and young people with disability in consultations and decision-making forums, there is no national, comprehensive approach to seek the views of children and young people with disability.
A lack of communication aids and support from an early age is a key barrier that prevents young people and children with disability from participating in decision making processes.
Attitudes that assume that young people with disability do not have the same interests, issues and insights as other young people, and that they belong in a specialist disability sector create a significant barrier to their participation in consultations and decision-making forums.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People with Disability
There is limited information available about the prevalence of impairment and disability among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people. However, in 2005 the Commonwealth Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision found that 37 percent of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population had a disability, and that this figure did not include people with psychosocial disability.
The higher incidence of impairment amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities results from a number of social circumstances including:
exposure to violence and psychological trauma, such as that caused through dispossession and forced removal from families and communities; and
substance abuse, as well as the breakdown of traditional community structures in some areas.
A key problem is a lack of accessible and culturally relevant information about ‘disability’ and available community services.
Consultations conducted by First Peoples Disability Network (Australia) highlighted inadequate culturally appropriate support available to Aboriginal children and young people with disability and their parents. Even where services are available, parents may have to deal with as many as six or seven different government departments during the early years of the life of the child. Many parents are reluctant to seek assistance from the service sector because of lack of trust and the trauma resulting from the well-documented removal of children from Aboriginal families.
As a result of these barriers very few children receive early intervention and support. In cases where early intervention is received, it is based on the medical model of disability, focussing on a primary health outcome, rather than the broader social consequences of the disability.
Case Study
A young Aboriginal girl who lives in a remote community has Otitis Media (glue ear). The young girl receives medical treatment for Otitis Media. However, as a result of her hearing impairment she has acquired a learning disability which has not been diagnosed. After treatment for the Otitis Media she is able to hear in class, however struggles to keep up because of the learning disability. While a health outcome is achieved, no attention is given to the learning disability.
