Submission
on the
National Disability Advocacy Program
Program Guidelines
For Further Information contact:
Andrea Simmons
Chief Executive Officer (Interim)
Disability Advocacy Network Australia (DANA) Ltd
Telephone: (02) 6154 1983
Email: Andrea.Simmons@dana.org.au
Disability Advocacy Network Australia (DANA) Limited
PO Box 96, Dickson ACT 2602
ACN: 136 792 884
Email: info@dana.org.au Website: www.dana.org.au
Disability Advocacy Network Australia (DANA) Ltd
DANA is a Company limited by Guarantee, established in October 2008 and incorporated in May 2009 to
strengthen and support Disability Advocacy Organisations across Australia to advocate for and with
people with disabilities so that they are valued and included members of the community, their
fundamental needs are met and their human rights are respected.
DANA purposes include:
(a) promoting the role and value of independent advocacy;
(b) providing a collective voice for members;
(c) facilitating communication and information sharing between disability advocacy organisations;
(d) facilitating support and development for members, staff, and volunteers of disability advocacy
organisations;
(e) promoting or undertaking relevant research relevant; and
(f) promoting the human rights, fundamental needs and value of people with disabilities;
DANA has 58 member organisations including at least one from each of the States and Territories of
Australia. Member organisations engage in systemic, individual, and specialist advocacy provision.
Page 2
1. Introduction
DANA acknowledges the value of developing a set of Guidelines to describe the objects and
purposes of the National Disability Advocacy Program (NDAP); the nature of the relationship
between the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) and the agencies contracted to deliver the Program; and the way in
which this relationship will be administered.
DANA believes however that any Guidelines developed for this purpose must be embedded in and
reflective of existing government policies and agendas. The Government’s Social Inclusion Agenda
(SIA) is to create a socially inclusive society in which all Australians feel valued and have the
opportunity to participate fully in the life of our society. The Government’s vision for people with
disability is described in the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (NDS) as being of an inclusive
Australian society that enables people with disability to achieve their full potential as equal citizens
and have the same opportunities as other Australians.
The Guidelines must enable advocacy organisations to play their part in assisting the Australian
Governments to fulfil their responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
People with Disabilities (UNCRPD) to protect, promote and fulfil the human rights of people with
disabilities. They must also enable advocacy agencies to assert on behalf of women, children,
indigenous people and people from other cultures with disabilities, their rights enunciated in other
international treaties. The Guidelines must further support the development of the kind of
productive, constructive and respectful relationship envisaged by the Australian Government when
it negotiated a Compact with the Third Sector.
It is DANA’s view that the proposed NDAP Guidelines reflect little of the disability, social inclusion
and rights focused policy development undertaken by Government over the last three years. It fails
as a document to recognise the vital role that advocacy plays in protecting very vulnerable people
and assisting them to assert their rights and interests so that they don’t experience abuse, neglect
and discrimination. It fails also to recognise that without advocacy support many very vulnerable
people with disabilities will have no possibility of achieving their full potential or of taking advantage
of the opportunities available to most other Australians in relation to education, work, recreation ,
housing, healthcare etc.
The Guidelines also pay scant regard to identifying and valuing the elements necessary to support
the development of respectful relationships between FaHCSIA and the agencies it funds as envisaged
Page 3
by the Compact. There is no attention paid in the Guidelines, for example, to developing
constructive engagement and information sharing mechanisms or to coordinating more effectively
with other governments’ advocacy programs to eliminate duplicated accountability measures.
The Guidelines appear instead to be seeking to entrench a very restrictive and reactive view of the
role and function of advocacy that is particularly unsuited to the likely future of predominately
individualised funding and support for people with disabilities. In this new paradigm people with
disabilities who do not easily engage with policies and process, who do not have good
communication or negotiation skills, and who do not have supportive people around them will need
greater access to advocacy support to negotiate the benefits that a more flexible and potentially
responsive system has to offer. They will need advocacy support to envision and make the kind of
proactive choices that are life enhancing and available to most other Australians.
It is also difficult to understand why, after many years of the Program functioning without Guidelines
it is seen as necessary to introduce outdated Guidelines just prior to the adoption of a new National
Disability Advocacy Framework (NDAF). Advocacy organisations have only recently concluded
participating in consultations on the Framework and reasonably expect that any Advocacy Program
Guidelines will flow from and be reflective of the Framework. There would seem to be little point to
policy development in the form of a Framework that has no bearing on the advocacy actually
delivered though the Government’s own advocacy program.
2. The Program
Part A
The Program Overview at 1.1 begins by understating the commitment of the Australian Government
to people with disabilities and makes no reference to the commitments of the government in the
last 3 years in ratifying the UNCRPD, and contained in the NDS, the SIA and the Compact.
At 1.2 the key performance indicators for services and supports for people with disability do not
have an indicator properly directed to capturing advocacy outcomes for people with disability.
Part B
2.1 & 2.2 National Disability Advocacy Program Overview, Aims and Objectives
The NDAP overview, aims and objectives fail to properly reflect the ambit of advocacy presently
delivered under the Program.
Page 4
Disability advocacy funded under NDAP does not merely assist people to overcome barriers that
impact on their daily lives and their ability to participate in the community. It works to promote and
protects the rights, interests and well-being of people with disabilities and to prevent rather than
simply respond to issues like abuse, neglect and discrimination.
This is recognised elsewhere in the Guidelines’ definition of disability advocacy but is not
incorporated here in the NDAP aims and objectives.
Disability Advocacy funded under NDAP informs people with disability about their rights and
responsibilities and supports them to make informed decision. By doing so it additionally seeks to
enable people with disability to take control of the direction and form of their lives to the same
extent as is available to the general population.
Disability Advocacy funded under NDAP does not simply contribute to government policy service and
program development or to raise community awareness of disability issues. Rather it acts on a
systemic level to ensure that the policy settings and practices of services, governments and business
tend towards the creation of a culture and environment in which people with disability experience
safety and fulfilment in their lives.
The overview refers to the fact that disability advocacy agencies receive funding under the Disability
Services Act (1986) (DSA). It goes on to say that the DSA and its associated Principles and Objectives
have a focus on outcomes for people with disability and that the Principles and Objectives of the Act
are articulated in the Disability Services Standards (Eligible Service Standards) (FaHCSIA)
Determination 2010 (DSS).
Within the DSA, the objects of the Act, set out in Section 3, address flexibility and responsiveness to
the needs and aspirations of people with disabilities, full participation and integration in the
community and independence for people with disabilities. The service standards articulated in the
DSS are not in and of themselves a full articulation of these objects. They are simply part of the
means by which the DSA objects are achieved. There is no reason why the DSA objects could not
additionally be articulated in a set of advocacy specific standards.
The detail of many of the DSS supporting service standards are not appropriate to much of the
advocacy work undertaken under the NDAP and the standards themselves largely do not address the
key elements of good advocacy but rather go to the elements of good administration , management
Page 5
and governance. DANA supports instead the development and implementation of quality assurance
mechanisms that will consider the performance of agencies against standards of practice that are
specifically relevant and appropriate to advocacy. This is because the things that are measured and
audited ultimately tend to become the focus of an agency so it is vital that these things are chosen
on the basis that they will yield the best advocacy result for persons with disability.
DANA would support the Guidelines articulating of a set of ‘Principles’ (see below) to guide the work
of advocacy agencies funded by the NDAP which are consistent, not only with the objects of the DSA
but also with the vision and direction of government as expressed in the UNCRPD, the NDS and the
SIA.
DANA also supports the Guidelines articulating ‘Outcomes’ that the NDAP might strive to achieve for
the benefit of people with disability.
There is nothing new about the NDAP Guidelines incorporating a set of guiding principles. Many of
the principles proposed below are the same as those, derived from the work of Wolf Wolfensberger,
that have been used to guide advocacy provided by the NDAP for most of its 20 year life. The
additional principles proposed draw extensively on those suggested by the Draft NDAF clarified by
and as far as possible aligned with the language of the UNCRPD.
This approach for determining guiding principles has the advantage of:
 enabling the government to clearly show that its funded advocacy program is directed
towards the fulfilment of its obligations under the Convention
 aligning advocacy with an internationally verified body of knowledge about rights, their
fulfilment and how they might be achieved
 ensuring that advocacy is conducted according to principles that have been the subject to
ongoing scrutiny and discussion over many years and around which a body of practice
knowledge has grown up.
Appropriate principles to guide the work of the Program are as follows:
a) disability advocacy is directed to promoting, protecting and ensuring the human rights and
fundamental freedoms of people with disability [see UNCRPD Purpose Article 1]
b) in particular disability advocacy is directed to the prevention of abuse, neglect, exploitation
of and violence against people with disability [see 2000 NDAP Advocacy Framework and
UNCRPD Article 15]
c) disability advocacy is directed to promoting, protecting and realising the interests and wellbeing of people with disability
Page 6
d) disability advocacy is directed to the promotion and realisation of full and effective
participation and inclusion in society of people with disability [see UNCRPD General
Principles Article 3]
e) disability advocacy respects the inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom
to make one’s own choices, and independence of people with disability [see UNCPRD
General Principles Article 3]
f) disability advocacy encourages and supports people with disability to represent their own
interests [2002 NDAP Advocacy Framework]
g) disability advocacy seeks to influence change to legislation, systems and services for the
benefit of people with disabilities [reworded to clarify in whose interests changes should be
positive]
h) disability advocacy promotes community awareness, understanding of and commitment to
the rights, interests, inherent dignity and fundamental freedoms of people with disabilities
[see (a) and (b) above and UNCRPD Article 8]
i) Disability advocacy engages in advocacy development in the form of education, support and
information to community members, families and people with disability who carry out
advocacy on behalf of persons with disability [NDAP Program for 20 years]
j) disability advocacy is partisan, i.e. on the side only of the person with disability [2001 NDAP
Advocacy Framework]
k) disability advocacy strives to minimise any conflict of interest [2001 NDAP Advocacy
Framework]
l) disability advocacy seeks to be independent, distinct and autonomous from service delivery
[2001 NDAP Advocacy Framework]
m) disability advocacy is vigorous and sees an issue through to its conclusion [2001 NDAP
Advocacy Framework]
n) disability advocacy will make strategic alliances as appropriate to further the rights, interests
and well-being of people with disability [the wording has been changed from the Draft to
reflect the need for advocates to guard against making alliances that do not ultimately
benefit people with disability]
DANA supports the Guidelines identifying outcomes for the NDAP that reflect improvements in the lived
experience of people with disabilities. DANA proposes that the Program outcomes include those put
forward in paragraphs (a) to (e) of the relevant section of the Draft NDAF with some modifications
outlined below, plus the following:
 People with disability live lives free from abuse, neglect and discrimination
Page 7




People with disability are accorded the rights and freedoms described in the UNCRPD and
other relevant United Nations Rights Treaties
People with disability have control over the direction and form of their lives to the fullest
extent that their decision-making capacity allows
People with disability understand their human rights
There is community awareness of the rights of people with disabilities.
Further consideration needs to be given to the supports and structures necessary to support people with
disability to undertake the representative and leadership roles envisaged by outcomes (d) and (e) of the
NDAF.
In relation to outcomes (d) and (e) of the NDAF it is also important to include the
representatives/advocates of people with disability in the categories of persons who are actively
involved in the development, delivery and evaluation of disability and broader government policies,
programs and services. Many people with disability are not in a position to be directly involved in these
matters and their needs, interests and perspectives will be different from those who are. It is important
that all relevant needs, interests and perspectives are considered and addressed.
2.3 Target Group
While DANA understands that the Guidelines here reflect the definition of disability used in the DSA it is
our view that it is inappropriate to perpetuate an approach to assisting people with disability based on
their ability to fall into a particular disability category. Rather DANA recommends that the target group
for the Program be altered to reflect those people recognised as having a disability under the UNCRPD.
2.4 Key Performance Indicators
The value in having key performance indicators is that they assist in understanding whether a Program is
delivering on its desired outcomes and to the people most in need. Reporting on the number of people
receiving advocacy is a very poor indicator of outcome delivery. What needs to be reported is the
number of people assisted through advocacy support to achieve the desired Program outcomes.
Setting targets for the number of people to receive advocacy is inappropriate because the number
assisted depends entirely on the level of vulnerability of the person, the nature of the advocacy issues
addressed and the capacity of the service and regulatory system to respond in a timely and effective
manner. Those people with disability in the most vulnerable circumstances are likely to need the highest
levels of support. They are likely to have multiple issues involving abuse, neglect, homelessness, social
isolation and unaddressed medical conditions etc. Their advocacy needs simply cannot be equated with
Page 8
those of someone who, for example, seeks assistance to resolve an issue with Telstra. When targets are
set, they tend to drive agencies towards addressing single small issues for multiple numbers of people.
This almost inevitably leads to those who need advocacy the most being those who are least likely to
receive it.
It also makes no sense to set systemic advocacy campaign targets. Effective systemic advocacy comes in
a wide variety of forms depending on the nature of the issue, the outcomes sought, the variety of other
players involved and the contribution the organisation is able to make. Some systemic advocacy work
takes the form of large campaigns with timelines, targets and milestones. On other occasions it involves
long term sustained raising of an issue at appropriate opportunities. Some systemic advocacy involves
engaging in a small way, perhaps by submission writing or attendance at consultations, as part of
government processes or in campaigns led by others. The systemic work of individual advocacy
organisations will often be about providing examples of systemic failure to lend weight to the larger
campaigns of dedicated systemic advocacy organisations. In these circumstances the setting of targets
will skew the nature of the campaigns undertaken and make them less responsive to the needs and
direction of people with disabilities.
It would be inappropriate and a conflict of interest for Government to become involved in setting
campaign targets, timelines and milestones for systemic advocacy as the Government is commonly the
object of systemic advocacy campaigns. The notion that FaHCSIA might seek to manage advocacy in this
way is also in conflict with the aims and aspirations of the Compact which says at page 5 that
government and the Third Sector “will protect the freedom of Third Sector organisations to contribute to
public debate without impact on their funding or status”.
Setting targets for advocacy involving people from the priority target groups of CALD and indigenous will
only be meaningful if they are set on a regional basis having regard to the number of people with
disability in the particular region who identify as being from a CALD or indigenous background. Some
regions have very few people from an indigenous background, for example the ACT, while others, like
the Northern Territory, have significant numbers. Some rural areas have very few people from a CALD
background unlike most of the larger cities. In certain areas also indigenous and CALD people will choose
to have their advocacy needs met by indigenous or CALD specific organisations rather than a more
generic advocacy agency.
2.6 Legislative Requirements
Please see above the comments made in relation to the DSS and the need for standards that are a right
fit for advocacy and that address what is good advocacy practice.
Page 9
2.7 Funding
The Guidelines, in attempting to describe how funding can be used, make a distinction between the
proportion of funding that can be used for the delivery of disability advocacy support and that which
may be used for administrative expenses. The distinction appears to be somewhat artificial and confused
when the detail of what falls into each category is considered. For example telephones, bookkeeping
(accounting) and audit costs, insurances, utilities (outgoings) and office materials (postage and
stationery) appear in both lists in some cases with slightly different titles.
The artificiality of the distinction is particularly obvious when you consider that the vast majority of the
agencies funded under the NDAP are small enough to ensure that staff performing administrative
functions will also be involved to some extent with the advocacy work taking place for people with
disabilities. Presumably, the administrative person who also answers phones and responds to people
with disabilities, service providers and regulators when advocacy staff members are engaged elsewhere,
is at that time involved in the direct delivery of advocacy. Most CEO’s or Mangers of advocacy agencies
also undertake advocacy themselves and support staff in their direct advocacy with advice and guidance.
Where advocacy is the only business of the agency, spending time attempting to break up the expenses
in this way is an inefficient use of valuable resources.
DANA has before raised with government concerns about the limitations placed on the expenditure of
Program money. Government expects that organisations will spend Program money efficiently and
effectively and in ways that maximise the amount of advocacy provided per dollar. Prevention of the use
of Program money for relocation costs, minor capital works, assets costing in excess of $10,000 and the
purchase of motor vehicles usually means that more funding is diverted to travel and office costs leaving
less available for direct advocacy support.
The main reason that organisations want to move locations is to take advantage of a better rental deal.
The primary reason for seeking to undertake minor capital works is to improve the accessibility of
premises. If organisations are prevented from doing this by lack of money their costs escalate.
Motor vehicle purchase is an effective way to manage costs involved in advocates travelling to undertake
advocacy, particularly in areas with no or poor public transport. It allows organisations to choose low
cost fuel efficient cars rather than take up more expensive vehicle rental options or paying mileage for
advocates to use their own cars. It also allows for more effective management of the risk of funding
being withdrawn by having available an asset that can be sold if need be rather than an ongoing
obligation to meet the commitments involved in a lease arrangement.
Page 10
3. Responsibilities and Accountabilities
3.1 The Department
Please see above for comments relating to the need for the Guidelines to better reflect the aims and
aspirations of the Compact between the Government and the Third Sector.
3.2.1 Conflict of Interest
In 2.5 of the Guidelines advocacy for people with disability is defined as “speaking acting or writing with
no conflict of interest.....”.
In 3.2 of the Guidelines it says that “Disability advocacy agencies will: ........provide advocacy support free
from actual or perceived conflict of interest,...”
These two statements are in conflict with the statements in 3.2.1 which envisage that an acceptable
response to the inevitable, actual and perceived conflict of interest which arises from an organisation
providing both disability services and advocacy support, is for the organisation to have a policy and
structure which operates to minimise the conflict.
DANA is strongly of the view that funded disability advocacy should be provided by agencies that are
independent and autonomous from the broader service system that provides support to people with
disability and their families.
This independence should be real rather than a construct of a governance arrangement that seeks to
separate advocacy from service provision within the one organisation. Ultimately at law the Board of an
organisation is required to work in the interests of the organisation as a whole and to manage any risk to
the reputation of the organisation or to its standing or relationships with its peers/competitors and
government. This will inevitably inhibit the ability of a service provider advocate to operate from the
required partisan perspective, on the side only of the person with disability, and to provide vigorous and
effective advocacy against another similar service provider or a government agency.
For advocacy to be effective it needs to be perceived by others as well as to actually be free of conflict or
potential conflict of interest otherwise the perception of conflict has a tendency to weaken the potency
of the advocacy. The perceived conflict creates an opportunity to regard the arguments made in favour
of the person/people with disability as somehow less valid and diminished in strength. This clearly
operates to make it less likely that the issue will be resolved in the person’s favour.
Page 11
The vital importance of independence from service provision has been recognised under the NDAP on
many occasions. See for example the 2009 National Disability Advocacy Program Quality Improvement
Toolkit p21 which identifies as an example of evidence of a proper management system that the “agency
does not provide direct disability services and is not aligned with any service providers”. See also the
2001-2002 Funding Agreement for Disability Advocacy Services which in Attachment D sets out a
Framework for the National Disability Advocacy Program. The Framework identifies principles of
advocacy to underpin the provision of advocacy assistance and includes the following “Advocacy strives
to minimise conflict of interest” and “Advocacy seeks to be independent, autonomous and distinct from
service delivery”. This Framework remained current and on the FaHCSIA NDAP website until at least
2006 and probably later.
DANA endorses the intention exhibited in the Draft NDAF to progressively ensure that disability advocacy
funding is independent of specialist disability service provision funding. We would encourage the
government to go further to ensure that the independence of funding is from all service provision and
that the independence required is real, as outlined above, and not quasi independence compromised by
perceived, potential or actual conflict arising from alignment with service provision.
5. Quality Assurance
Please see pages 5 and 6 above for comments about the appropriateness of judging advocacy quality by
the DSS.
6. Reporting Requirements
6.1 Performance Reporting
The Guidelines at 6.1 indicate that the purpose of the performance reporting is to determine the number
of people who receive advocacy support and the number of issues they were assisted with. It goes on to
say that. “To achieve this, the individual should only be counted once in the reporting period.” While it
may be reasonable to count an individual only once DANA believes that it is also important to report the
number and type of issues being addressed. This is a better reflection of the amount of work undertaken
by an agency and of the ongoing disadvantage being experienced by people with disability.
DANA believes that there are opportunities to be harnessed to more effectively use advocacy agency
performance reporting to provide useful data for systemic purposes. We would like to work with
government to achieve this.
Page 12
6.2 Financial Acquittals
The Guidelines at 6.2 stipulate that funding not spent within the activity period cannot be rolled over
and will need to be repaid to the Department. When the activity period for a funding contract is of a
reasonable length this stipulation is one that can be sensibly managed. In circumstances however where
the funding agreement is only 12 months long, year after year, it is difficult for organisations to properly
plan or to make sensible ongoing financial and staffing commitments. It is thus also difficult to attract
quality staff and to get value for money from leasing arrangements.
Page 13