Australian Government: Attorney-General's Department
Australian Government: Attorney-General's DepartmentAchieving a Just and Secure Society

Review of the Disability Discrimination Act Legal Services - October 1999

Prepared for: Community Legal Services Section, Legal Aid Branch, Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600

Ref: R4003/Report, October 99

Table of Contents

Terms Used

ABS

Australian Bureau of Statistics

ADC

Anti-Discrimination Commission

CLC

Community Legal Centre

CLE

Community legal education

DDA

Disability Discrimination Act

DDALS

Disability Discrimination Act Legal Services

EOC

Equal Opportunity Commission

FoI

Freedom of Information

HREOC

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

RSR

Rush Social Research1

SSCLS

Sussex Street Community Legal Service

WRC

Welfare Rights Centre

Notes

Disability organisations: two terms have been used throughout this report and need clarifying:

  1. Disability consumer organisations: this refers to organisations providing people with a disability a range of support such as advice and advocacy, aids and equipment and so on
  2. Disability service organisations: this refers to organisations that in many cases provide care of people with a disability, such as sheltered workshops, institutions, health authorities and so on. The evidence within this Review is that disability service organisations are sometimes respondents in discrimination cases.

Acknowledgments

Jenny Rush and Cecilia Hemana of Rush Social Research would like to thank a number of people for the manner in which they offered assistance and advice during the conduct of the Review. We are aware that in naming some people we run the danger of leaving out others who were equally helpful, so we have been somewhat 'generic' in our acknowledgments.

It is true to say that without the support of many people our job of reviewing the DDALS would have been extremely difficult. Our sincere thanks to:

and particularly:

We also appreciate the assistance and support of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department throughout this Review.

We suggest that the summary section of this report be widely disseminated in a range of appropriate formats to the disability sector to ensure that their contribution to this Review is acknowledged.

[Return to Contents]

Summary and Recommendations

The Review reported on herein is an evaluation2 of the Disability Discrimination Act Legal Services. This Review was undertaken via a nation-wide series of qualitative in-depth and elicitation interviews with relevant staff, Management and Reference Committee members, disability and other organisations, and people with a disability.

ToR 1: Factors Impacting Negatively on the Success of Delivery Approaches

Funding is, as always within this sector, an ongoing issue that our terms of reference do not address. Apart from this, the main factors impacting negatively on the success of the varied service delivery approaches of the services, appear to be:

External factors

Internal factors

[Return to Contents]

ToR 2: Examples of Best Practice

We recommend:

Specific requirement of accountability

  1. That all DDALS introduce an appropriate mechanism to ensure that the DDALS staff and (where applicable) their Reference Committee are agreed on major spending of DDALS funds.
  2. That all co-located DDALS provide separate DDALS budgets and independently audited annual balance sheets for publication in the host organisation's Annual Report.

Specific requirements of Committees

  1. That all co-located DDALS have a Reference Committee to direct the activities of the DDALS, to be made up of:
    • disability sector representatives from a range of disability consumer organisations
    • people with a disability not necessarily represented by these organisations
    • a representative from the Management Committee and the Centre's Co-ordinator
    • a representative of the DDALS
    • if possible an independent legal sector representative.
  2. That members of the Reference Committee are appointed for a specific period (eg two years) with a phased retirement process whereby the Committee is ensured some continuity.
  3. That members of Reference Committees receive orientation or introductory training on the DDA and on their responsibilities as a member of the Reference Committee.
  4. That reasonable travel expenses are paid to help Reference Committee members to attend meetings.
  5. That for co-located DDALS, the host organisation's Management Committee should include:
    • a small number of representatives of the disability sector, including people with a disability
    • a DDALS representative
    • at least one representative of the Reference Committee.
  6. That where a service is stand alone, the DDALS Management Committee should consist in the main of:
    • representatives from a range of disability consumer organisations
    • people with a disability not necessarily represented by these organisations
    • where possible an eminent legal sector representative
    • DDALS staff and the service coordinator.

Given the balance of advantages and disadvantages outlined in this report, it is felt that the co-located model is more appropriate than the stand-alone model. Particular issues that need attention in this decision are the viability of the host service, compatibility of the host ideology, and the level of support for the DDALS service from the Management Committee.

We also do not overlook the possibility that a particular State/Territory may believe (in consultation with the disability sector) that a stand-alone model is best for that location. Thus, the co-located model should not be imposed as a pre-requisite. We recommend:

Stand-alone or co-located models

  1. That co-location within a suitable generalist community legal service be regarded as the preferred model of service.
  2. That after consultation with the disability sector, each State/Territory may be allowed to decide the placement of the DDALS service as appropriate for local conditions.

Strategic plans and standards

  1. That each State/Territory DDALS develop a long term strategic service plan which includes extended relationships with the disability sector, planned programs of community education and development, and agreements on a balanced program of individual and systemic work.
  2. That each DDALS develop and agree a set of quality standards for the service.

ToR 3: Identify Ways to Maximise the Effectiveness of Service Delivery

During the research we have sought ways of maximising the effectiveness - quality and reach - of the services. We recommend:

Access

  1. That all DDALS premises be readily accessible to all people with a disability as per the Building Code of Australia.
  2. That the DDALS hours of opening be agreed by DDALS staff and Reference Committees as appropriate and where logistically possible, these should not be subject to closures such as occur within some host services.

Legislation

  1. That each service recognise the availability of both Commonwealth and State legislation and ensure that clients can make informed choices on the best approach for their discrimination matter.

[Return to Contents]

Information Resources

  1. That the DDALS network as a whole, seek or pool resources to allow the development of a general training package, adaptable to video and personal presentation, to be used in developing self-resourcefulness as well as informed advocacy services within the disability sector.
  2. That the DDALS network investigate a more cooperative approach to the development and production of 'DDALS generic' education materials and support materials for clients.
  3. That the DDALS network investigate ways of developing national information resources for the use of DDALS staff.
  4. That the DDALS network discuss and negotiate with HREOC the updating of the Manual and Guide.

Outreach

  1. That stronger efforts are made to provide assistance and support to people with a disability (or their carers where appropriate) who have, by circumstances such as living within an institution, a reduced capacity to communicate with a DDALS.
  2. That the DDALS network pool resources and create a network of collaborators in regional and rural Australia, which can act in concert with the DDALS in preparing and undertaking CLE/community development activities in such areas.
  3. That the DDALS network undertakes pilot trials of technology such as video conferencing or Internet advice services for people with a disability unable to reach a DDALS office.
  4. That the network introduces other technology that may reduce workloads and increase access, including scanner s and TTY services (where not already installed).
  5. That the network ensures that interpreters (particularly Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander interpreters) are available for clients.
  6. That the DDALS undertake to establish a formal association with, and a data base of, private law firms who can and will provide pro bono services.

Increased profile

  1. That the DDALS across Australia work towards a higher degree of media exposure for achievements in settling complaints.

Relationship with HREOC

  1. That the DDALS network collate each service's concerns, prepare a discussion paper and initiate discussions about improved dealings with HREOC including enabling a faster and smoother process towards conciliation or hearing.

    It is important that the DDALS legal professionals are supported with assistance such as appropriate secretarial, administration and filing services, and assistance with case work, CLE and community development. As well, the disability sector is strongly aware that the DDALS is an equal opportunity employer. It expects exemplary behaviour from such a service.

    It is essential that any work aides required for DDALS staff are provided immediately the need arises. The latter issue is addressed in the following recommendations whereas the former issue is one that is more properly addressed by each service.

We recommend:

Staff resourcing

  1. That the DDALS network3 ensure that wherever necessary spending is made appropriately on workplace aides for staff with a disability.
  2. That the DDALS network, with the support of the National Association of CLC's, consider how best to prepare for such a contingency by seeking and conserving a special fund for work aides for solicitors/DDALS staff with a disability.

ToR 4: Assess whether the DDALS are Appropriately Focused and Targeted

We have concluded that (generally) the services are appropriately focused and targeted, responding as they do to the expressed wishes and needs of people with disabilities and disability sector organisations in each State or Territory. The focus on individual or on systemic or test cases is also a matter for the sector and the service to decide in the light of the needs of the State and the resources available.

However, some individuals with a disability discrimination matter believe that they are missing out and this is of concern to all. We believe there is room for closer liaison and cooperation between the DDALS on this issue. We recommend:

  1. That the DDALS network initiate discussions and consider the establishment of a national focus for guidelines for the services, including on the provision of systemic/test case services on a national basis.
  2. That on a State/Territory level, the decision about each DDALS' balance of activity remain a matter for the sector and the service to decide in the light of the needs of the State and the resources available in that State/Territory.

[Return to Contents]

Background, Objectives and Method

1 Introduction

The Community Legal Services Section of the Legal Aid Branch of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's contracted Rush Social Research to assist with a Review of the Disability Discrimination Act Legal Services Program.

The Review has addressed the appropriateness of the strategies and arrangements currently employed by Disability Discrimination Act legal services to meet the needs of people with a disability experiencing discrimination and their associates.

2 Background

2.1 The Disability Discrimination Act

The Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1992 provides for complaints to be made by people with a disability alleging discrimination on the basis of their disability.4 The objects of the Act are:

  1. to eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination against persons on the grounds of disability in the areas of:
    1. work, accommodation, education, access to premises, clubs and sport; and
    2. the provision of goods, facilities, services and land; and
    3. existing laws; and
    4. the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs; and
  2. to ensure, as far as practicable, that persons with disabilities have the same rights to equality before the law as the rest of the community; and
  3. to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle that persons with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the community.

The Disability Discrimination Act became operational in March 1993 and is administered by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC). The Act includes a very specific definition of the meaning of the word "disability":

  1. total or partial loss of the person's bodily or mental functions; or
  2. total or partial loss of a part of the body; or
  3. the presence in the body of organisms causing disease or illness; or
  4. the presence in the body or organisms capable of causing disease or illness; or
  5. the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of the person's body; or
  6. a disorder or malfunction that results in the person learning differently from a person without the disorder or malfunction; or
  7. a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person's thought processes, perceptions of reality, emotions or judgement or that results in disturbed behaviour;

and includes a behaviour that:

  1. presently exists; or
  2. previously existed but no longer exists; or
  3. may exist in the future; or
  4. is imputed to a person.

[Return to Contents]

2.2 Number of People with a Disability

In 1993 the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in its report Disability, Ageing and Carers, estimated that 3,176,700 persons, or 18 per cent of the Australian population had a disability, with a strong relationship between disability and age. The ABS identified disability as one or more of a group of selected limitations, restrictions or impairments which had lasted, or were likely to last, for six months or more. A further classification was made - that of 'handicap'5 where a disability limited a person's ability to perform any of a list of tasks regarding self-care, mobility, verbal communications, schooling or employment. Fourteen point two percent (14.2%) of the population were estimated to have a 'handicap'.

2.3 Provision of Legal Services for People with a Disability

Family Law and Legal Assistance, a division of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, administers the Commonwealth funding program for legal aid commissions (LACS) which provide an estimated 80 per cent of government funded legal aid. The Department also funds community legal centres (CLCs) which offer complementary services. There are a large number of CLCs across Australia, and a number specialise - for instance, in women's issues, youth affairs, or through Welfare Rights Centres, on social security matters. Funding for CLCs also comes from State/Territory governments and a number of other sources. A large number of volunteers provide additional free resources.

The Commonwealth Government considered people with a disability might need access to support from appropriate agencies to bring complaints about discrimination to HREOC, including the need for advocacy services and community legal education. Funding was thus allocated for the provision of advocacy support services at the community level, not for litigation costs, since the DDA is intended to achieve systemic change through education and example, and remedies for complaints through conciliation.6

Advocacy support services for people with a disability are now established in each State/Territory, with Queensland having two services, one in Brisbane and one in Cairns. The Centres provide community legal services under Commonwealth and State Government programs, and receive other support, including financial, from the legal profession, particularly through the provision of pro bono services.

3 Terms of Reference

The review is an evaluation of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) legal services and will assess the effectiveness of the DDA legal services in providing appropriate legal services to address the needs of people with a disability experiencing discrimination.

The Brief lists a series of tasks for the consultant:

  1. document and analyse current service delivery arrangements and methodologies7 to identify factors impacting negatively on the success of service delivery approaches undertaken by the Disability Discrimination Act legal services;
  2. identify examples of best practice;
  3. identify ways to maximise the effectiveness of service delivery provided to people with a disability experiencing discrimination and their associates through the Disability Discrimination Act legal services;
  4. assess whether the Disability Discrimination Act legal services are appropriately focussed and targeted; and
  5. prepare a report, which will include recommendations and models of best practice where appropriate, on all aspects of the terms of reference.

4 Key Issues

Some key issues were considered in planning the research.

5 Detailed Research Method

5.1 Initial Discussions with Legal Aid Branch

A thorough briefing was given to RSR by the Legal Aid Branch and the Project Consultative Committee to ensure that the research achieved a complete familiarisation with the DDALS.

At this briefing, the proposed methods for the Review were extensively discussed and the identification of the key stakeholders to be included in the face to face interviews was commenced.

The protocols of notification to CLCs, particularly DDALS-auspicing CLCs, were also confirmed as were the protocols surrounding contact and research with people with a disability.

5.2 Notification to DDALS, CLCs and Confirmed Key Stakeholders

All DDALS and key stakeholders were notified of the appointment of Rush Social Research (RSR) to the Review, by the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department.

RSR then wrote to each DDALS, and made telephone contact to discuss the manner in which the Review was to be conducted. Similarly, contact was made immediately by RSR with the key disability sector organisations.

A subsequent telephone conference between the research team and the Review Consultative Committee, and a personal meeting with two members of the National Caucus of Disability Consumer Organisations, ensured that the methods used to contact and include people with a disability, were acceptable to the disability sector.

Once arrangements were made for inter-State visits by the consultants had been made, RSR re-contacted key stakeholders and arranged personal interview appointments.

Advertisements seeking participation from people with a disability were placed in the major daily newspapers in each State/Territory. Client and constituents of the DDALS were further sought via letters sent by each to a wide range of DDALS clients in each State/Territory. This was done by the DDALS staff. RSR also sought to locate clients and constituents via disability organisations and other networks.

5.3 Interviews in all States/Territories

Most of the research was undertaken via individual interviews: either face to face or by telephone, depending on the wishes of the respondent and the distance from the capital cities. On several occasions it was the expressed wish of clients that they be interviewed while accompanied by a family member or carer, and in two cases, with another person with a disability.

The interviews were conducted with:

Each interview took between in the vicinity of an hour to two hours. The decision was made not to tape record the sessions: interviewers made thorough and comprehensive notes throughout. These notes have been extensively re-read to facilitate reporting and verbatim quotes have been used to illustrate a number of points.

The issues were covered in discussions and interviews, according to a set of topic guides developed prior to the interviews by RSR and discussed and confirmed by the Legal Aid Branch and the Review Consultative Committee. There was also an opportunity for each respondent to introduce topics of importance to him or her self (or the organisation) but which had not been covered in the topic guide.

As well, within the interviews, the key stakeholders were asked about other important people or organisations whose views might be important to the Review. Where names not previously considered arise, RSR considered the importance or otherwise of including these nominees.

Interviews were conducted in a number of venues: professional market research offices in Brisbane, accessible hotel units in other cities, participants' homes, organisational offices, and the DDALS offices.

It should be noted that at all times participants were assured of the confidentiality of their responses. Pains have been taken throughout the report to ensure that this is the case.

Interviews and consultations were conducted during the period 10 May to July 20, 1999. Very few responses were received from newspaper advertising.

The numbers of clients and disability sector organisations interviewed are as follows:

State or

Territory

DDALS staff

Management & Reference Committee members

Client numbers

Other key disability sector stakeholders

Totals excluding staff & management

NSW

Yes

Yes

14

6

20

Victoria

Yes

Yes

10

10

20

SA

Yes

Yes

8

4

12

WA

Yes

Yes

12

5

17

ACT

Yes

Yes

7

10

17

Tasmania

Yes

Yes

6

8

14

NT

Yes

Yes

9

6

15

Brisbane

Yes

Yes

10

8

18

Cairns

Yes

Yes

5

3

8

Totals

81

60

141

[Return to Contents]

Summary of Main Findings and Recommendations

6 Summary of Main Findings

The following summary has been developed around the key information objectives outlined in the Project Brief from the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, and distils the enormous amount of information gathered in the process of interstate visits, telephone and other consultations.

6.1 ToR 1: Document and analyse current service delivery arrangements and methodologies to identify factors impacting negatively on the success of delivery approaches.

6.1.1 Which disability groups are currently using the DDA legal services, including service delivery levels?

The range of disability groups or types currently accessing the DDA legal services ranges broadly across:

People with a psychiatric disability and people in institutions are seen by stakeholders to be important groups currently having less access to the DDA Legal Services, or missing out altogether. However some States are acknowledged to be making efforts to ensure inclusion.

Other people within the disability sector who use the DDALS services include a large number of consumer organisations, advocacy groups and support groups. Some disability service organisations also use the DDALS as a source of information and consultation.

In terms of service delivery levels, all DDALS appear to be operating at full capacity and can do little more within the available resources.

6.1.2 Is the program keeping up with demand? What methods are being used to measure objectives and demand? Are there structured performance indicators that tie in well with the strategies outlined to meet the organisations stated objectives?

6.1.2.1 Keeping up with demand

Generally speaking the services attempt valiantly to keep up with demand, and identify a high level of un-met need for assistance, community development and CLE. In most cases the DDA staff (legal professionals and others):

Most services attempt to control their case load to a level which allows time for CLE or developmental work and which provides access to service for as many clients as possible within their resources.

There is a crying need for skilled-up non-legal advocates who can take some of the conciliation work and free up the legal professional for major case work and/or systemic/test cases or law reform. Whilst it is possible that these could be volunteers the services need to be (and are) mindful of the demand on their time, for training and supervision of any volunteers. Closer and/or more formal ties with pro bono services might be another approach to increasing the amount of case work the DDALS can take on.

6.1.2.2 NIS

Currently, measurement of service provided is undertaken via NIS. The statistics kept via NIS reportedly do not adequately describe disabilities or disability needs and are felt to lack useful but more qualitative descriptive information. All services are aware that comprehensive discussions have been held between the Department and CLCs in regard to the NIS data and that on-going development has accrued from these discussions. At the moment the services still describe the NIS data as inadequate for their purposes, time consuming and difficult to use effectively. The time taken to input NIS data is particularly difficult given:

NIS data is supplemented to varying degrees by other statistics, kept in an ad hoc fashion: eg counts on incoming calls to advice or other lines, calls from disability organisations wanting information or questioning referrals. However it is true to say that across the States/Territories, precise record keeping is difficult, and tends to be secondary to service provision.

6.1.2.3 Structured performance indicators

Most DDALS have activity plans that detail preferred case loads and levels of CLE activities which the staff are to achieve during each funded year. These act as performance indicators for most services.

Most DDALS professionals spoken to in the Review point to "open case" loads and community development and CLE activities which match or exceed the stated requirements. The number of cases which are closed during the year varies according to whether State or DDA legislation is being used, so that 'closed' cases seems to be a difficult performance indicator to apply.

6.1.3 The level of liaison and cooperation between DDALS, people with a disability experiencing discrimination & associates, other stakeholders and other relevant service providers.

6.1.3.1 Clients

People with a disability sometimes 'find' the DDALS through accident but mostly through referral from their disability organisation, another CLC or such organisations as the local Council. Some clients contact the DDALS after being turned down everywhere else that they have sought assistance.

Once in need of and in contact with a DDALS, people with a disability mostly receive an understanding and useful hearing. They relate very positive experiences and a high degree of approval for the existence of the service.

Clients indicate a large amount of respect for DDALS staff. They are said to provide very good initial feedback on the legitimacy of a client's case and its relevance to the DDA, and to clearly describe the options available and the implication of each option. Clients describe the legal professionals and other staff as willing to travel to see them where travel or access is difficult, and as putting in very long hours.

Clients describe the services as having a clear understanding of disability issues. As well, clients report that most DDALS are spending some time skilling up people with a disability to take, where possible, their own initiative and to support others in doing so.

In most cases, contacts with individual clients, following up a complaint, are regular: almost all reported being impressed with the degree to which the legal professionals kept them in touch with progress, or with any requirements.

A number of clients in South Australia have commented on the irony of a legal service that is not accessible on site, to clients in chairs or unable to use stairs. The service will however be relocated as a result of the review of CLCs in South Australia.

6.1.3.2 Disability Sector Organisations

The sector indicates that most DDALS are aware of their responsibility to the disability sector as a whole. Disability consumer organisations are kept informed by the DDALS by a range of activities, and contact with this sector is regular:

Disability sector organisations are also being supported with information and advice, and with services to which clients can be referred.

The sector believes that each service should be extremely careful to:

There is a shortfall in contact with people or groups dealing with psychiatric disabilities and with people, or groups representing people, in institutions. This shortfall is acknowledged by the sector and the services alike. We note the efforts of at least two States - Victoria and South Australia - to overcome this.

[Return to Contents]

6.1.3.3 Other Key Stakeholders

Other relevant stakeholders - HREOC and State/Territory Equal Opportunity bodies9 - confirm that contact with the DDALS is generally professional and cordial. Some State bodies are very complimentary about the way in which the DDALS conduct these relationships.

Contact with other CLCs varies between States/Territories but CLCs are seen as valuable allies in DDA issues/cases although experiencing similar scarcity of resources and generally with less knowledge of DDA issues. There is a potential for upskilling within generalists CLCs that again will be dependent on resources.

Other pro bono and legal services are also varyingly utilised but important within the DDALS networks. More formal arrangements with pro bono services might increase their usefulness to the DDALS network.

6.1.4 Extent of networking between DDALS and the disability sector and community legal service sector.

6.1.4.1 Liaison with Disability Sector Consumer Organisations

For most services there appears to be a good and growing level of liaison and cooperation between DDALS and disability sector consumer organisations, especially those that provide advocacy services. At most DDALS, attempts are made to be 'broad brush' in this contact, although some have more than others. In Western Australia where a sub committee rather than a reference committee currently guides the DDALS, the sector appears concerned at the level of consultation with the sector.

The level of contact is of course dependent on the resources available (including for community development and CLE) and in this the DDALS generally appear to use their budgets wisely, enrolling people from the disability sector to be a part of a Reference or Advisory Committee. CLE is more and more often aimed at skilling up these key disability consumer organisations.

There has been some criticism in one or two States that the special interests of the legal professional dictate to some extent the choice of disability sector organisation with which contact and liaison is establishe d. There has also been some mild criticism of the process of inviting selected representatives from disability consumer organisations, to become a member of an Advisory or Reference group. However, as far as the researchers can ascertain the choices are usually made carefully, with those invited to a committee or group being those who have some standing within a disability community, who are well qualified and relatively able to participate in the setting of policy.

Nevertheless, a more democratic approach - perhaps by inviting key consumer groups to nominate Committee members of their choice, may further enhance the relationship between the DDALS and the sector.

6.1.4.2 Liaison with Disability Sector Service Organisations

The level of contact with disability service10 organisations is much less regular overall, and can occur when a service organisation is a respondent in a case brought by its client. The relationship is described as less cooperative and in some instances has been called "adversarial" where strained relationships have occurred during a case. However there are a small number of examples of more positive relationships which appear to enhance the opportunities for the DDALS to inform and educate without creating conflicts of interest. It is clear that there is an opportunity to reduce levels of discrimination by educating service organisation staff on the DDA, the rights of people with a disability, and the existence of the service to protect these rights.

Clearly, people with a disability must have confidence in the DDALS as a source of protection and assistance in discrimination matters. Whilst it is a very fine balance, it may be possible for the DDALS to consider a formal education kit or course for disability service providers which would not cross conflict of interest boundaries. Another possibility is to run 6 monthly forums for disability service organisations, as is done in the Northern Territory. There may be an opportunity for cost recovery at least, in this. Nevertheless, paramount across this contact is the DDALS determination to ensure clients' interests and continuing confidence.

6.1.4.3 Contact with CLC's

Contact with the wider CLC sector is generally made on a less structured basis, and as far as can be seen is less regular as well as less intense.

CLC's are a referral source for clients to the DDALS, and will ask for information and occasionally advice. Most spoken to in the course of the Review recognise their lack of expertise in the DDA and defer to the DDALS, although there is a very small number of CLC's who will also take on DDA cases.

More education on the DDA is a strong possibility to enhance to role of CLC's in furthering community knowledge about their rights under the DDA. However, any recommendation from this Review for the DDALS to increase their developmental or educative work with the wider CLC sector must recognise the priorities established by each State.

6.1.5 Are the links between the services and the disability sector/people who can advocate for themselves as strong as links with those who cannot?

Currently all services are aware of the difficulties in broadly and successfully establishing links with people who cannot advocate for themselves, although each service certainly appears to have clients who require intensive service.

Most services have stated that stronger links are required with people in institutions, people with psychiatric disabilities and those with sensory disabilities who have had fewer educational opportunities than others. Some services are, however, achieving networks within institutions and other places where less independent people are evident.

The DDALS are bound by policies and strategies on issues and targets for the services, agreed by Reference/Management Committees. In most cases these emerge from consultations with the disability sector.

Case work activities - mainly in individual assistance - are generally being closely monitored by the DDALS staff, and their Reference/Advisory Groups. The level varies across the States/territories but DDALS appear to be at the limit of their capacity for further outreach. Reference Committees are aware of the need for stronger links to those less able to advocate for themselves. As the more overt issues are being attacked there is a clear intent to develop further the links between the DDALS and those not yet benefiting from the legal services.

[Return to Contents]

6.1.6 What are the referral patterns for DDALS, where do referrals come from?

Referrals to the DDALS come mainly from the following sources:

Referral from disability organisations is sometimes a 'last stop' referral where a consumer organisation has tried to conciliate between a client and an offending party without success. However, many more organisations are immediately directing their client to the DDALS, aware that their growing reputation will focus the respondent's mind on the issues.

6.1.7 Are the services the only ones undertaking DDA work: how are they used by other organisations providing community legal services?

A small number of other disability sector organisations are undertaking legal advocacy around the DDA or State legislation, however the disability sector is itself becoming less well funded and is experiencing a retracting of resources. This poses difficulties for the sector in providing specialists services of this nature

A small number of CLCs are apparently providing legal assistance on disability discrimination matters. However they are quick to say that they need greater skills and understanding of the complexities of the DDA legislation. Further, like most community organisations they are forced to harbour their resources carefully and often feel their budgets are better spent in areas where their expertise is unquestionable

The DDALS are aware of the benefits of drawing on the skills of other organisations to complement the work that they do. For those which are situated within a generalist service - for example, Norwood, Sussex Street or the Darwin CLS - clients with disabilities but whose issues are not specifically discrimination, are referred within the same CLC service.

The DDALS keeps in close touch with those organisations whose services reflect at least some of their own. They offer training and information services, workshops and attendance at meetings, and encourage cooperative ventures (eg systemic cases often come from referrals from services organisations which might then support the complainant whilst the DDALS provides the legal professional).

6.1.8 What is the relationship like between the DDALS, HREOC and State/Territory EOCs?

Each DDALS considers a number of things when deciding whether to use the Commonwealth or State/Territory legislation on behalf of a client. In the first place there are the wishes of the complainant to consider. Each complainant is familiarised with the nature of the process under Commonwealth and State/Territory legislation. Decisions on which legislation to use are made after considering such things as:

6.1.8.1 HREOC

In the 1997-98 Annual Report from HREOC the predominance of complaints about discrimination were made under the DDA legislation (nearly half of all complaints). Within this, the largest category (approximately one third) is around employment11 followed by access to goods, services and facilities, with physical access and education issues cases also increasing. Areas which are believed to be growth areas in discrimination matters are telecommunications (use of digital technology which affects hearing aids) and interactive technology increasingly replacing personalised service.

The HREOC notes that contingencies such as annual leave, staff changes etc affect the number of new cases being received from the DDALS under the DDA. The emphasis on systemic or test case work in NSW results in few cases coming through each year, however those that do have a large impact. The use of the State bodies is noted also and this varies over time but is noticeable in Queensland and Western Australia, according to HREOC.

The quality of the relationship between HREOC and the DDALS is said to be different according to whether they are dealing on a policy level or a 'day to day' level. On the policy level, the relationship is very professional and there is respect between the parties.

On the 'day-to-day' level the relationship is generally good. Differences in ideological approaches are noticed across the DDALS, for instance, one may focus on conciliation whilst another may focus on taking things to a hearing to get results. However, HREOC considers that the use of conciliation should be strongly considered before pushing for more complex settlement methods.

There is also a feeling within the HREOC that one or two of the DDALS solicitors have less well-developed negotiation skills than others and this was described as disappointing, because clients are people in a vulnerable position.

HREOC are aware that a number of cases take a long time within the system. They cite the complexity of examining technical data, pleas of unjustifiable hardship or defences for each section of the complaint, where the area is already complex, as lengthening the average length of DDA complaints made to HREOC. This has implications for many DDALS clients, given the often-remarked difficulties they face in sustaining lengthy cases.

The fortuitous use of individual complaints as the basis of wider interest common to a large number of people, is seen by HREOC as an important strategy for the DDALS. Scott versus Telstra is cited as an example. The HREOC also believes that the majority of the complaints received are now from individuals who are from the broad disability community rather than pressure groups (as was the case earlier). This suggests to HREOC that the DDALS may be achieving their objective of supporting and educating people with a disability to make complaints when discriminated against.

It is noted by HREOC that the DDALS sometimes use HREOC as "leverage" to speed up negotiations with a respondent. A complaint will be lodged and then discussions will commence. According to HREOC this speeds up the process considerably, compared to the usual manner of negotiations then complaint. This tactic is positively received.

HREOC reports some problems in dealing with complaints from the DDALS and believe these lie with the way the complaint is framed by the DDALS professional. The example given was a complaint that might be made on behalf of all people who can't access a particular service, when more specific identification of the complainant group and the nature of the discrimination would be more useful. There is a belief within HREOC that some issues such as this will resolve themselves as individuals within the disability network become more experienced with regard to the DDA.

One HREOC participant mentioned more contact with Western Australia and Adelaide and more recently with Brisbane services, than with other services. The high turnover of solicitors in New South Wales and Western Australia was noted, as is the concentration in NSW on policy discussions and standards. Since other services in NSW - People with Disability, Disability Complaint Service etc. - can provide legal advocacy this concentration is seen as a sensible distribution of duties. The NSW service has notably contributed to the standards discussions, according to HREOC.

The HREOC view is that there are difficulties within the DDALS in Victoria. Reportedly, there is less clarity in this service about what 'fits' under the DDA. Few cases are received from Victoria.12 However, the HREOC is also aware of the need for the DDALS professional in Victoria to take time off for health reasons which effectively reduces the availability of services.

In summary, the relationship between HREOC appears reasonably professional although there are clearly some tensions. From the DDALS point of view, HREOC have been described as:

[Return to Contents]

The difficulties for the DDALS staff are understood by HREOC to be:

6.1.8.2 Anti-Discrimination Commissions or State-based Equal Opportunity Commissions/ Tribunals

In each State/Territory the DDALS appear to have established a very good working and professional relationship with their relevant state based Equal Opportunity body.13 The State bodies are a major source of referral to the DDALS, in those states where these exist.

It is also said by the State bodies that the presence of the DDALS assists them in their own role of Anti-Discrimination Commission. People contacting the State body can be referred in confidence to a DDALS for capable legal advice and assistance. Complaints are generally well thought out and phrased in accordance with the Act. Most of the DDALS solicitors/advocates are seen as having good negotiating skills. The availability of support for a person with a disability in conciliation is generally seen as important, particularly where a complainant has a complaint against a large organisation or disability service provider.

The Commissions are also aware of the way in which the DDALS attempt to stretch their resources to skill up as many stakeholders as possible and view what is done as having wide and positive flow on effects. The State bodies support the wide held view that further resourcing would greatly enhance the DDALS services.

Reciprocally most DDALS using them seem to foster good relationships with the State bodies, viewing it as practical and helpful to do so.

The degree to which the DDALS lodge complaints with the State bodies differs considerably. The DDALS will discuss with the clients the benefits of using either HREOC or the State legislation. Three States -Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, use the DDA exclusively. In the case of Tasmania there is currently no State Anti-Discrimination Law, although this will soon be ratified. The other two States believe that the Service Agreement with the funder restricts them to the DDA, although this is not the case.

It should also be said that some DDALS are apprehensive about the possibility of being asked to use only the Commonwealth Act, which would force them to work only through HREOC. As said elsewhere the HREOC process is lengthy and unenforceable unless taken to the courts, which in turn is outside the capacity of most clients.

6.2 ToR 2: Identify Examples of Best Practice in Service Delivery

6.2.1 Compare how particular models are applied

The models of service differ on the following criteria:

There appear to be major differences in the delivery of service between the two stand-alone services.

Across these DDALS which are co-located, the differences in service models is much less clear. Variations might include:

The DDALS hold similar beliefs about the importance of community development and CLE. The variations are generally in the distribution of these activities across the availability of funds, rather than the existence or non-existence of each activity.

6.2.2 Why do differences exist?

Differences exist on a number of rationales, but are to a large extent dependent on:

6.2.3 What processes are in place for acceptance and rejection of matters?

Again, many decisions about what is accepted and rejected are made on the basis of the strategic direction agreed by and recommendations from the DDALS Reference or Advisory Group. For instance where a service wishes to concentrate on a particular area or on cases where change for a much wider range of people might occur, this is generally such a recommendation. In South Australia the service will focus on education issues for individuals with learning or intellectual disabilities whereas in New South Wales the concentration is on systemic and test cases, supported by community development and CLE. In most cases this strategic direction is set after consultations with the disability sector - and to a smaller extent, on research.

Thus, on a macro scale acceptance or rejection is made on such service model criteria. However, on the micro (case by case) level a number of other criteria exist. Some of these are in formal guidelines for the service overall and others are a matter for the Reference/Advisory Groups or for the discretion of the practitioner within the service. The first essential criterion is, of course, whether or not the case fits under the DDA.

In some States/Territories, the first screening is done by the reception desk or the telephone advice service. In others, calls go directly to the DDALS staff, which we believe is the better approach. Once it is established that the complaint falls under the DDA, the matter is assessed for viability and the capacity of the complainant to:

In many cases these criteria are informal rather than formally documented, and rely to a great extent on the professionalism and experience of the solicitor. Having said this it is clear from the relative lack of clients reporting negative experiences or an unreasonable refusal of services, and the many outstanding successes, that most DDALS are wise in their selection of cases.

[Return to Contents]

There is some indication that the Cairns service undertakes casework outside of discrimination law, and some instances of this have been discussed. A notable effort has gone into working on unjust eviction from an Aboriginal Housing Cooperative, which has provided the DDALS with a high profile amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people. On checking with the solicitor in Cairns, a rough estimate of the nature of cases has been obtained:

Where other services undertake work outside of the disability discrimination area, this is done from a strategic perspective: it will enhance the DDALS visibility, create a strong level of trust in the disability sector, or it will recompense for cross funding from the auspicing body.

6.2.4 What is the nature of requests and responses?

Requests for assistance cover services within and outside the original purpose of the DDA funding, and include representation, advice, education, information and support:

There are some requests that the DDALS can not fulfil but from anecdotal evidence collected in the Review, all requests are acknowledged and the reasons for lack of service are given. Referrals to other services are made, and in some but not all cases, are followed up to ensure some service was received.

The DDALS all appear to be able to provide materials in accessible formats for information seekers, which give details of the service provided and of people's rights under the DDA. At the moment indications are that each DDALS acts independently in developing these materials, and they are varyingly sophisticated in production. There is a good case for a more cooperative approach on a national level for a generic information pamphlet or materials. These could present generalised success stories based around rights and possible actions, and contact details for each DDALS. Alternative sources of funds such as providing training in the DDA to the private sector or legal professionals at profitable charge-out rates, may be possible to assist in this. Alternatively, HREOC could be encouraged to resource the DDALS to do so, and also to update14 the now out of date Manual and Guide.

All DDALS staff appear to be active in their information and education roles, with attendance at disability sector meetings and functions, radio interviews, print media columns, training workshops, speaking engagements and so on noted. Many activities are requested, although some are self-generated.

Given the resources available, the services are always aware that some clients must be encouraged to undertake their own action. Client interviews indicate that the support given facilitates this. Clients say that without the support and encouragement given they would not have taken action. Where the solicitor undertakes the casework him/herself, clients are universally appreciative. Even where a case has been unsuccessful clients taking part in this Review say such things as:

         "I would not have tried to get justice if the service had not been available".

The range of issues for which requests for service are made is huge, ranging from one-off individual employment, access, education or service provider abuse. Examples are the firing of a young woman with intellectual disability from her sheltered workshop job, the verbal abuse by a public transport operator of a person with a hearing impairment or the refusal of a dentist to attend to a person with a disability.

Other issues will often impact on the broader community as well as people with disabilities. Examples are changes in physical access in public building and public transport, the McDonalds Access Action Plan, departmental staff training in a major Family Services Department, the Telstra case and so on.

We estimate that less than 10 per cent of clients have reported being disappointed in the response received from the DDALS. Those who were disappointed were generally:

6.2.5 Identify and describe any methods in place to address quality assurance: eg client feedback, complaints mechanisms

Quality assurance issues are addressed in a number of ways. In most cases there are formal Service Guidelines which have been developed at the stage of applying for funding or inauguration of the service.

These may have been modified over time in consultation with or on the recommendation of the Reference/Advisory Group, and Management Committee.

Most DDALS have express directions such as: 80% of time on case work, 20% on CLE. Some extend this and are very explicit about the targets for this CLE, for instance, disability consumer organisations, other CLC's and so on. These can be articulated in a work plan that is provided to the funder. Discussions with the DDALS professionals indicate that most directions such as these are achieved, although all say more CLE and outreach is needed.

Ad hoc periodic file reviews are undertaken, feedback is sought from clients and Management Committees. Mandatory annual file reviews tied to Professional Indemnity Insurance were apparent in some States.

As part of a generalist service, one or two services have surveyed clients to ensure client satisfaction over time. Checks on casework loads are made by Reference/Advisory and Management Committees.

The resources of the DDALS are such that time allocation to quality controls is problematic, however all adhere to the standards set by professional indemnity insurers.15 The quality of the outcome for clients is the major concern.

Apart from in New South Wales, we are not clear whether there is a formal complaints mechanism in place within each DDALS. However, client feedback is axiomatic and clients are encouraged to recontact the DDALS if any concerns arise.

[Return to Contents]

6.2.6 What are the administrative models used by service providers and are there appropriate management committee arrangements in place?

The number of administrative models for the DDALS across the country is relatively restricted.

6.2.6.1 Lines of responsibility

These are fairly uniform with most co-located services having a Reference/Advisory Group making recommendations to a Management Committee responsible for all or most services within the generalist CLC/WRC offices. Members of the Reference/Advisory Groups are mostly people with a disability or are representatives of disability consumer organisations. In WA the situation appears less satisfactory to the disability sector, since the Reference Committee has foundered and there is currently a sub-committee of the Management Committee advising the DDALS. The disability sector has said they need more representation in advising the DDALS services.

There are some issues around the two-tiered committee structure, principally the membership and balance of influence of these. At the moment most DDALS look at the make-up of a committee and invite people to join based on ensuring a good representation of types of disability, and the effectiveness of the background and capacity of the invitee to spend time at meetings etc. It is less usual for the disability sector to be invited to nominate committee members. Whilst this has not been complained about it has been mentioned and is an aspect of committee membership which should be looked at.

Another issue that has been raised in discussions is that of conflict of interest. Reportedly this has occurred in one State, where a relative of the DDALS solicitor has been on the Management Committee, or where a particular interest lobby group/person has been the representative to the Management Committee. There is also a possibility of conflict of interest where a DDALS worker is on both the Management and Reference Committee.

Nevertheless for all parties to remain fully informed and advised it would seem wise to ensure that, for the two-tiered committee structure in co-located DDALS:

Where a service is stand-alone the two-tiered committee structure is not required however in b oth cases the Management Group does and should include people with a disability or from a disability sector organisation. In Victoria there are strict guidelines to ensure that 8 of 11 positions are people with a disability or from the sector. This requirement seems appropriate.

A further model utilised in Western Australia since 1998 is characterised by a Committee of Management for the SSCLS, and a specialist sub-committee from this Management Committee. There are clear lines of communication between the two and some members belong to both committees. Neither DDALS staff members are on either committee but undertake work for the Sub-Committee and report to the Management Committee. The separation of staff from the Sub Committee was intended to overcome any perceptions of bias. As seen above, however, the disability sector would prefer this service to have wider representation from the sector, and to continue with a full Reference Committee structure.

In Cairns, the active Reference Committee has questioned the 'nominal' status of the Committee and there was a feeling that it should have power to do more to make recommendations to the Management Committee. This feeling was not expressed elsewhere.

6.2.6.2 Administrative services

Apart from in the stand-alone services in New South Wales and Victoria, the co-located DDALS services share administrative services such as reception, bookkeeping etc, with their host organisation.

Where administration services are shared there has been some complaint on the part of some DDALS that these services are hard to get, with competing demands from the DDALS and the host organisation.

Another issue for the DDALS within the use of administration services is the potential for cross-subsidisation, with the amount of service achieved not according to the amount of funding allocated for this function. (In one service it was believed that the DDALS was not getting value for money and in another it was believed that the host was subsidising the DDALS in providing more services than paid for). An example is that one solicitor does not receive assistance with filing, for instance, which can consume time better spent on case work or CLE. In other DDALS, use of secretarial assistance sometimes needs to be "competed for".

In some cases the proportion of funding set aside for administrative purposes includes an amount for generic education materials (eg in Darwin) however in others the DDALS has a set amount for specific CLE materials and activities and does not contribute to generic materials.

Where this does not exist it seems there is a need for a clear expression of the proportion of services which accrue to the amount of funding allocated, and a monitoring process to ensure that this is forthcoming.

6.2.6.3 Budgets

Budgets are set for each DDALS after discussions with Reference/Advisory Groups and Management Groups, usually via a planning session. There is some concern amongst the services and their hosts about the annual nature of appropriations of Commonwealth funds for the DDALS. A move towards 2 or 3 yearly appropriations would allow more confident forward planning.

Management of funding is treated differently between DDALS and the choice appears to be made by agreement within the Management Committee: it can be

In all DDALS, spending is closely monitored by the Management Committee. Decisions about major purchases are discussed by the Reference/Advisory Group. In most but not all, budgets are reported separately in Annual Reports prepared by the auspicing CLC. Annual accounts are audited. We believe that separate statements of expenditure are important for each DDALS.

The two stand-alone services each publish an Annual Report.

Regardless of whether the funding is kept separate or 'pooled' there seems to be an agreement to keep the proportion of DDALS funding spent on generalist services such as reception, administration and book-keeping to as minimal a figure as possible. The proportion allocated is usually a percentage of funding: ie 10% in Cairns and Adelaide.

Other issues around the most useful allocation of funds in auspice services emerged in one or two DDALS, for example, spending on equipment which:

It was noted in South Australia that by 'pooling' bank savings and cheques accounts whilst retaining separate accounting systems, a major saving had been made on bank fees and through the increased interest accruing from larger balances in a smaller number of accounts. The key is for clarity of accounting on expenditure from these accounts.

[Return to Contents]

6.2.7 What are the current auspicing arrangements and support from other organisations providing community legal services: are these efficient and in the best interests of people with a disability and associates?

There is some debate about the cost effectiveness of the two models of service: stand-alone or co-located services. Since it is clearly very difficult to run a stand-alone service on some of the smaller funds allocations, we will deal only with the auspicing arrangements of the seven services that operate from within a generalist CLC or a Welfare Rights Centre.

The general administrative and budget arrangements have already been described. Other issues around the co-located DDALS that have been raised include:

On the positive side, co-location arrangements of shared reception and space allow for:

The co-located services are clear that the arrangements allow for maximising their budgets for client service. The opportunity for peer support and cross referral is also described as important. Most report that the host CLC/WRC is supportive even though some may need an increased understanding of disability issues.

Overall, where Reference Committees and/or extensive consultation with the disability sector occur, and where transparency of funds use is maintained, the current auspicing arrangements are reasonably efficient, although scarce resources impinge at all levels.

6.2.8 What are the differences between DDALS that are auspiced and those that are separately incorporated (ie 'stand-alone' or 'co-located')?

When the DDALS was established, there were no models of service that could usefully determine the most appropriate structure for service delivery. Most opted for and stayed co-located, in no small part in an attempt to maximise the effectiveness of their funding.

At the time of the research, there are clearly a number of differences between separately incorporated DDALS services and those that are co-located.

Issues such as focus of activities, degree of community development and CLE compared to case work, the choice of individual casework over systemic work (and the degree to which some of each is undertaken) are decisions that are made through consultation with the disability sector.

We believe that co-location has a number of advantages (shared overheads and administration costs, peer support, cross-referral) which make this model preferable, although a clearer identity and independence on contact hours are important. However, regardless of whether the service is co-located or stand-alone, what we see is a very small number of people providing a well regarded and essential service to a very large constituency. Further, the decision does and should lie to a certain extent on the size and shape of the disability sector and its needs and preferences on this, and on the conditions within each State/Territory.

Obviously it also depends on the amount of funding, for instance the service provided by the ACT, Northern Territory and Tasmania would be almost bereft of financial resources if they were unable to share resources and costs. The funding in Queensland would obviously not be able to be split in the way it is now and this split is seen as crucial to contact with regional clients. In New South Wales and Victoria stand-alone services are just possible with, respectively, the two largest funding grants (and at least New South Wales gains income from consulting services to industry). According to all discussions elsewhere, it would be much less possible on the smaller amounts granted to other States/Territories.

[Return to Contents]

6.2.9 Why do these differences in 8) above exist? Are other organisations within the disability sector more appropriate to auspice DDALS?

The rationale for becoming a stand-alone service was made via disability sector and implementation/management committee discussions. The decision was generally made to allow a strong, specialist focus on disability issues and follow its disability-specific philosophy. It was also felt that a stand-alone service would increase the potential for direction and management from the disability sector. It also allows for a clear identity within the sector of the DDALS services and purpose. It is, in the end, the preferences of the sector that should be a major consideration.

The Review is of the opinion that there are few, if any, other organisations within the disability sector which are more appropriate than CLCs to auspice the DDALS. In the first place the service is essentially a legal service and it clear that to have any teeth it must retain this clear association. In the second place, the disability sector itself is complex and very politicised and one disability group may be very suspicious of its placement within another disability group.16

It is therefore paramount that the legal service retain its transparency and association with the legal profession, even whilst its ties to the disability sector must be strong.

The other question is whether or not there are more appropriate CLC's within which the DDALS could be placed. Again, the State differences suggest a uniform approach is not appropriate, and the Review supports State/territory autonomy on this. This exception is in South Australia where we believe the service requires re-locating to accessible premises. However as a result of the Review of CLCs in South Australia, the service does expect to be re-located and faces the need to reduce services to cover the increased cost of commercial rents.

There has also been the suggestion that placement within a generalist CLC with several services provides a more "holistic" service opportunity than placement within a Welfare Rights Centre. The Review did not detect any disability sector strong views on this, however.

What is clear is that clients would benefit from the co-located DDALS having a stronger identity separate from that of the auspicing CLC/WRC. This will emphasise to people with a disability that it is a specialist service dedicated to their discrimination issues.

6.2.10 Develop a preferred model or models of administration for DDALS that are auspiced by another organisation.

It is clear that the current administrative models, whilst differing and not perfect are the choices made in consideration of:

Most DDALS and host organisations are careful to provide transparent accounts and systems. Most work effectively, and most DDALS and hosts cooperate well. 'Glitches' in this may occur with staff turnover or a clash of interests eg in needs for administrative assistance, or disagreements about funds allocation.

Overall, the DDALS will be loath to accept a standard model, since each State/Territory and set of conditions is different. However, some administrative 'conventions' might include:

[Return to Contents]

Recommendations Under ToR 2.

We believe that DDALS attempt at all times to maximise the impact they make with the resources they have. There appear however to be some areas where the rationale for and exact allocation of administration costs etc are less well documented, and/or where cross funding occurs.17 There is also a need for separate annual reportage of funding spend and case work/CLE completed.

There are some differences also in the degree to which the services are working closely with the disability sector: there are varying permutations of Management and Reference Committee structures in those services that are co-located. There are also some differences in the level of support available to the DDALS staff.

It could be said that the most crucial parameter of best practice is providing a service which has been developed around the particular needs and expressed wishes of people with a disability in that State or Territory.

The emphasis on providing services that are relevant to and directed by the sector means that the imposition of one model of service is difficult. However, there are examples of best practice that might easily be considered by all DDALS:

a) Specific requirement of accountability

There is a need for all services to ensure complete transparency and accountability in using the DDALS funds: this means thorough and comprehensive recording of all budget items and spending, and ensuring that cross-funding is not to the DDALS detriment. We recommend:

1. That all DDALS introduce an appropriate mechanism to ensure that the DDALS staff and (where applicable) their Reference Committee are agreed on major spending of DDALS funds.

2. That all co-located DDALS provide separate DDALS budgets and independently audited annual balance sheets for publication in the host organisation's Annual Report.

b) Specific requirements of Committees

Whilst Committee structures (or the intent of these) were similar across the services, there were some instances where the Management and Reference Committees appeared to be less effective. In co-located DDALS it is important to have disability representation on both the Management and Reference Committees and the same need for representation holds true for stand-alone services. In a co-located service, we also believe that it is important to have a Reference Committee rather than a Management Committee sub-committee to guide the DDALS. The Committees clearly need to work smoothly together. We recommend:

3. That all co-located DDALS have a Reference Committee to direct the activities of the DDALS, to be made up of:

4. That members of the Reference Committee are appointed for a specific period (eg two years) with a phased retirement process whereby the Committee is ensured some continuity.

5. That members of Reference Committees receive orientation or introductory training on the DDA and on their responsibilities as a member of the Reference Committee.

6. That reasonable travel expenses are paid to help Reference Committee members to attend meetings.

7. That for co-located DDALS, the host organisation's Management Committee should include:

8. That where a service is stand alone, the DDALS Management Committee should consist in the main of:

c) Specific recommendations regarding stand-alone or co-location models

A major question that emerges is which is the better - a co-located or stand-alone service model. We have identified a number of advantages of co-location within other community legal centres, and of stand-alone services. On balance, we believe that the co-located model is more appropriate, given that this allows for:

In making this judgement we do not overlook the advantages of stand-alone services which primarily are:

[Return to Contents]

Further, in suggesting that this model provides a better opportunity for shared costs we do not overlook the possibility that a particular State/Territory may believe (in consultation with the disability sector) that a stand-alone model is best for that location. Thus, the co-located model should not be imposed as a pre-requisite. We recommend:

Stand-alone or co-located models

9. That co-location within a suitable generalist community legal service be regarded as the preferred model of service.

10. That after consultation with the disability sector, each State/Territory may be allowed to decide the placement of the DDALS service as appropriate for local conditions.

Strategic plans and standards

11. That each State/Territory DDALS develop a long term strategic service plan which includes extended relationships with the disability sector, planned programs of community education and development, and agreements on a balanced program of individual and systemic work.

12. That each DDALS develop and agree a set of quality standards for the service.

6.3 ToR 3: Identify ways to Maximise the Effectiveness of Service Delivery Provided to People with a Disability Experiencing Discrimination, and their Associates, through the Disability Discrimination Act Legal Services.

6.3.1 Are the present models of service delivery effective in producing outcomes for People with Disabilities experiencing discrimination?

The Review has shown that there is a positive and growing impact for people with a disability across Australia, from the services of the DDALS.

The degree to which this is the case varies from State to State (and Territory). It is true to say, however, that in every State/Territory, people with a disability, disability consumer organisations, some disability service organisations and other key stakeholders believe that the presence of the DDALS has been instrumental in:

There are clearly still some people with a disability for whom the DDALS has not yet been able to deliver the full range of services. These include:

6.3.2 Are there better ways of delivering the service?

The placement of the services within the legal system framework (as is achieved within the CLC movement) and a high level of consultation and direction for the disability community, are essential in all States/Territories. Given the available funding, the Reviewers doubt that there is a uniform better way in which the service as a whole can be delivered. However, there are some things that we believe might extend the current 'reach' and impact of the services across Australia. For instance:

There is also the possibility of extending the reach and delivery of services via:

Almost all initiatives will incur costs. Decisions about the costs involved and how best to fund such services should include broad community consultation, and well formulated cost comparisons with other means of service delivery.

6.3.3 Are the DDALS maximising the use of technology to delivery services?

The application of technology to a service primarily depends on the capacity of the service to purchase or employ the technology. This is more possible (it would seem) where a DDALS is co-located, and can take advantage of policies of the generalist CLC to upgrade or employ new technologies. In Perth for instance the generalist CLC has installed a telephone advice line which 'screens' and ensures that callers to the DDALS are specifically disability discrimination cases.18 Further, Sussex Street has initiated a web page

There is a strong reliance on telephone contact with clients within the existing DDALS services, for advice and information. Negotiations in Queensland, by teleconference, have overcome barriers of distance in the successful conclusion of a complaint. There are still a number of cases however, where the use of technology is inappropriate for contact between people with a disability and the DDALS solicitors/advocates. These occur where there is an inability to use technology, where a strong build up of trust and empathy is required and where confidence building is essential. In these cases, face-to-face contact is necessary.

Overall, within the funding the Review believes that the slow development of the use of technology will occur but few affordable solutions to broader contact are yet available.

[Return to Contents]

Recommendations Under ToR 3.

There are a small number of possibilities that may assist in maximising the effectiveness of service delivery:

We recommend:

Access

13. That all DDALS premises be readily accessible to all people with a disability as per the Building Code of Australia.

14. That the DDALS hours of opening be agreed by DDALS staff and Reference Committees as appropriate and where logistically possible, these should not be subject to closures such as occur within some host services.

Legislation

15. That each service recognise the availability of both Commonwealth and State legislation and ensure that clients can make informed choices on the best approach for their discrimination matter.

Information Resources

16. That the DDALS network as a whole, seek or pool resources to allow the development of a general training package, adaptable to video and personal presentation, to be used in developing self-resourcefulness as well as informed advocacy services within the disability sector.

17. That the DDALS network investigate a more cooperative approach to the development and production of 'DDALS generic' education materials and support materials for clients.

18. That the DDALS network investigates ways of developing national information resources for the use of DDALS staff.

19. That the DDALS network discuss and negotiate with HREOC the updating of the Manual and Guide.

Outreach

20. That stronger efforts are made to provide assistance and support to people with a disability (or their carers where appropriate) who have, by circumstances such as living within an institution, a reduced capacity to communicate with a DDALS.

21. That the DDALS network pool resources and create a network of collaborators in regional and rural Australia, which can act in concert with the DDALS in preparing and undertaking CLE/community development activities in such areas.

22. That the DDALS network undertakes pilot trials of technology such as video conferencing or internet advise services for people with a disability unable to reach a DDALS office.

23. That the network introduces other technology that may reduce workloads and increase access, including scanners and TTY services (where not already installed).

24. That the network ensures that interpreters (particularly Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander interpreters) are available for clients.

25. That the DDALS undertake to establish a formal association with, and a data base of, private law firms who can and will provide pro bono services.

Increased profile

25. That the DDALS across Australia work towards a higher degree of media exposure for achievements in settling complaints.

Relationship with HREOC

26. That the DDALS network collate each service's concerns, prepare a discussion paper and initiate discussions about improved dealings with HREOC including enabling a faster and smoother process towards conciliation or hearing.

It is important that the DDALS legal professionals are supported with assistance such as appropriate secretarial, administration and filing services, and assistance with case work, CLE and community development. As well, the disability sector is strongly aware that the DDALS is an equal opportunity employer. It expects exemplary behaviour from such a service. It is essential that any work aides required for DDALS staff are provided immediately the need arises. The latter issue is addressed in the following recommendations whereas the former issue is one that is more properly addressed by each service.

We recommend:

Staff Resourcing

27. That the DDALS19 network ensure that wherever necessary spending is made appropriately on workplace aides for staff with a disability.

28. That the DDALS, with the support of the National Association of CLC's, consider how best to prepare for such contingency spending by seeking and conserving a special fund for work aides for solicitors/DDALS staff with a disability.

[Return to Contents]

6.4 ToR4: Are the Services Appropriately Focussed and Targeted?

6.4.1 Is the service provided adequate and appropriate for the needs of people with a disability experiencing discrimination?

Given the manner in which consultation with the disability sector occurs and dictates the focus and delivery of service, the services are generally and not surprisingly described as appropriate for the needs of people with a disability facing discrimination. The focus on and around the DDA and the commitment of DDALS staff to being disability aware are clearly appreciated by the disability sector. Further evidence of the commitment to people with a disability is seen in the employment of solicitors/advocates and other staff who themselves have a disability.

This commitment to positive employment is one that enhances the image and reputation of the DDALS. Equally so is the dedication and understanding clearly seen in staff who do not have a disability.

One issue which accrues from the positive employment of professional people who also have a disability is the need for each DDALS doing so, to be transparently supportive of that staff. Equipment and aides are essential to confirm the service's commitment to their focus on disability discrimination.

This positive reporting does not beg the few issues around service adequacy which have emerged in the Review:

6.4.2 Are there regions or groups who are not catered for adequately?

It will be clear from the text above that there are indeed a number of groups who are of concern to the DDALS and the sector in regard to a gap in service provision. Whilst there are 'micro' groups sometimes mentioned, at the macro level the gaps exist for:

6.4.3 How can the DDALS best provide a service throughout their State/Territory?

Realistically the DDALS can do little better than they currently do with limited resources. Whilst the services already appear to provide huge value for money, there are some possibilities which could enhance what they already do and many of these have been discussed above.

To some extent a maturity of refocus from general awareness-raising amongst the disability sector about the DDA and their rights under this ACT, to what can be done on a personal level and to educating and upskilling others to act as advocates, is already evident.

It is clearly the wish of most clients with a disability that attention remain on the individual to a reasonably large extent, and that the services look within this focus for opportunities for systemic impact or possible test case material. The balance across most DDALS appears to be right for this current environment. In the case of NSW the sector is supportive of the focus on systemic and policy work, community development and CLE.

Some other possibilities of spreading services to a larger number of people with a disability, and thus improving the service, are:

6.4.4 Are services seeking legal remedies under State as well as Commonwealth legislation and have services developed effective relationships with state providers?

Where there is a state opportunity, most services are seeking legal remedies under State as well as Commonwealth legislation, as has been discussed above. The exceptions are Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania.

Other services use both legislation's and do so whilst paying attention to the capacity of the client to sustain a lengthy process, the sort of outcome required, the need for enforceability and, primarily, the wishes of the client.

Recommendations Under ToR 4.

We have concluded that (generally) whilst the services are not reaching all their target markets, the services are appropriately focused and targeted, responding as they do to the expressed wishes and needs of people with disabilities and disability sector organisations in their State or Territory. The question as to whether the focus on individual is more appropriate than a focus on systemic or test cases, is answered by all as being a matter for the sector and the service to decide in the light of the needs of the State and the resources available. Further, both are believed to be essential at this point in the evolution of the services and in fact, individual cases are seen to have wider impact on a number of occasions.

However, some individuals with a disability discrimination matter believe they are missing out on assistance and this is of concern to all. We believe there is room for closer liaison and cooperation between the DDALS on this issue. The network would do well to explore the possibility of more formalised cooperative efforts, on a national basis, with regards to systemic/test cases, thus allowing the services to achieve a stronger balance between the two, where appropriate. We recommend:

32. That the DDALS network initiate discussions and consider the establishment of a national focus for guidelines for the services, including on the provision of systemic/test case services on a national basis.

33. That on a State/Territory level, the decision about each DDALS' balance of activity remain a matter for the sector and the service to decide in the light of the needs of the State and the resources available in that State/Territory.

[Return to Contents]

Endnotes

1 Rush Social Research became the social research division of Colmar Brunton Research Australia at 1/7/97.

2 The Terms of Reference required an analysis of current service delivery arrangements and methods. The project concentrated on these issues and whilst balance sheets were obtained, the research method did not include a financial audit.

3 The network has requested the inclusion of "all CLC's" in this recommendation, however the broader range of CLCs is outside our terms of reference.

4 Brief to consultants, May 1998, Attachment A, p1.

5 The word 'handicap' is generally not used in day-to-day documentation in the public sector and is not generally used in RSR verbal or written communications.

6 In reality, some issues around the DDA lack clarity and respondents are sometimes antagonistic to conciliation: clients need representation under these circumstances.

7 It should be noted that this did not include a financial audit.

8 Recent research experience with the Disabilities sector has illustrated clearly to RSR the wide range of disability issues and concerns, and the diversity of special interest disability organisations and peak bodies there are.

9 Varying called Anti-Discrimination Commissions, Equal Opportunity Commissions etc.

10 Service organisations are those which provide a person with a disability a service such as accommodation, paid or other work, health services and so on to people with a disability who are clients. It differs from a consumer organisation that provides advice, information and advocacy to voluntary members.

11 There is a question raised about whether some of these (ie in public service complaints), with Commonwealth respondents, should more properly be attended to via the public service¹s own processes.

12 Note that services may be negotiating outcomes directly with respondents rather than filing a complaint. Nevertheless this comment is reported as made.

13 A sample of State/Territory Commissions, rather than every state-based body, was asked to take part in the Review.

14 In the light of post-Brandy decision changes.

15 A current major Commonwealth project is the development of "Service Standards and Performance Indicators (SSPI) for the CLS Programme.

16 As mentioned elsewhere service organisations that provide essential services such as health, accommodation etc can sometimes be respondents in cases that are brought by DDALS clients. Another example of perceived bias on the part of the sector would be if a DDALS was co-located with a disability housing organisation, and accepted more cases in the housing area than in, for example, education.

17 Either from host organisation's funding to the DDALS or vice versa.

18 There is some debate about the appropriateness of this screening, compared to screening by DDALS staff.

19 The network has requested the inclusion of "all CLC's" in this recommendation, however the broader range of CLCs is outside our terms of reference.

20 In Victoria a significant proportion of the client base are people with a psychiatric disability and strong links are held with this sector. Similarly, in South Australia there is contact with groups advocating for people with psychiatric disabilities and people in one of the largest institutions in the State.