Disability commission questioned
Print
Experts have investigated potential flaws in the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability.
The Royal Commission, which concluded in 2023, has been criticised for not adequately addressing the specific needs of parents with intellectual disabilities.
A new research paper argues that the Commission's recommendations for policy reform fell short in several key areas.
The researchers say that the Commission missed a vital opportunity to recognise and support the reproductive and parental rights of people with intellectual disabilities, a group that faces unique challenges.
One of the major criticisms of the Royal Commission's approach was its broad treatment of parents with disabilities as a single group.
By failing to differentiate between various types of disabilities, particularly intellectual disabilities, the Commission did not fully acknowledge the distinct difficulties that parents with intellectual disabilities face.
This group, which is particularly vulnerable to both interpersonal and structural violence, was largely rendered invisible in the final report.
As a result, the specific risks and challenges they encounter, such as discrimination within legal and social systems, were not sufficiently examined or addressed.
The Commission’s focus on First Nations families also drew criticism.
While it was appropriate to highlight the intersection of disability and First Nations identity, especially in relation to the high rates of child protection interventions, this focus had an unintended consequence.
It overshadowed the experiences of non-Indigenous parents with intellectual disabilities, who face different but equally significant challenges.
The researchers argue that by concentrating on the intersection of First Nations identity and disability, the Commission neglected to address the broader issue of ableist assumptions made by professionals, which frequently lead to the unwarranted removal of children from parents with intellectual disabilities.
Another significant issue identified was the Commission's application of a “life course approach”, which aimed to understand the stages of life that individuals with disabilities experience.
However, the researchers argue that this approach was too narrow and did not fully consider reproductive justice over the course of a person's life.
Parenthood, which should be viewed as a normal stage in adult life, was not given the same attention as other milestones such as employment or housing.
This omission, according to the paper, meant that critical issues such as forced sterilisations or the disproportionate removal of children from parents with intellectual disabilities were not sufficiently explored.
The failure to adequately address these issues, the researchers contend, resulted in the Commission's inability to recommend essential legal and systemic reforms.
These reforms could have protected the rights of parents with intellectual disabilities and ensured that they received the support necessary to parent effectively throughout their lives.
The final report did not propose measures to reform child protection systems, which are often biased against parents with intellectual disabilities, nor did it call for stronger legal protections against reproductive rights violations such as forced sterilisations.
This absence of clear recommendations has left a significant gap in addressing the structural discrimination that this group faces.
While the Royal Commission made valuable contributions to understanding and addressing the broader issues of violence, abuse, neglect, and exploitation experienced by people with disabilities, the review found that it did not sufficiently address the needs of parents with intellectual disabilities.
For those in need of support, help is available through the 1800 Respect National Helpline (1800 737 732), the Men’s Referral Service (1300 766 491), the Women’s Crisis Line (1800 811 811), or Lifeline (131 114).