Strengthening the Role and Position of Independent Advocacy in Australia

1. Strengthening the Role and Position of Independent Advocacy in Australia DANA 3rd National Disability Advocacy Conference Canberra 2010

2. Background • NDAP Reform process 2006 onwards • First National Disability Advocacy Conference 2007 – Commitment to form a National Network • Second National Disability Advocacy Conference 2008 - Formation of DANA • Resourcing Advocacy Discussion Paper 2009 • Resourcing Advocacy Proposal 2010

3. Proposal for Funding & Administration of Advocacy Agencies • A proposal to safeguard the independence and resource base for independent disability advocacy effort across Australia. • A rationale for ongoing development of independent advocacy program resourcing across the nation. • A mechanism for strengthening and supporting the growth and development of independent disability advocacy

4. Why do we need a proposal? • Current national state/territory reforms of disability funding under National Disability Agreement (NDA) and other COAG reforms. We need to have a say in our own future. • Consolidate and defend funding that has been set aside for independent advocacy across a number of Commonwealth and State & Territory Programs. • Adoption of UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities by Australia needs strong independent advocacy for more vulnerable citizens. • National Disability Strategy highlights need for access to strong independent advocacy. • Shift towards models of individualised funding and direct payment models relies on access to independent advocacy and advice.

5. Reviews of Advocacy • Six reviews since the implementation of the Disability Services Act in 1987 • 1991 – CSDA arrangements leave advocacy funded by both Commonwealth and State govts. • 1992 – First review of advocacy program • 1993 – 2 separate reviews/reports (Judith Cross & Lorraine Zeni) and (Cocks and Duffy) • 1994 – Departmental Paper endorsed by Brian Howe (Minister) • 1996 – Law Reform Commission and MGM Reports • 1999 – Review of NDAP • 2006 – Review of NDAP • Failure of all these reviews to yield any beneficial change. • Development of DANA presents new opportunities to play a key role in effective reforms.

6. DANA Proposed Principles Arising from Reviews • Principle 1Government to provide core, recurrent advocacy funding on the basis that independent advocacy is a fundamental and essential support for vulnerable people with disabilities • Principle 2Program administration and funding to be separate from political or government influence because advocacy is commonly directed against government agencies or services provided under government funded programs.

7. DANA Proposed Principles Arising from Reviews Principle 3To minimise the possibility or perception of conflict of interest, advocacy support should be provided only by dedicated advocacy organisations that do not also undertake service provision Principle 4Individual advocacy support is available in various forms to all people with disabilities. Principle 5Systemic advocacy capacity to exist in each state and territory to respond to the range of issues that impact on the rights, interests and needs of people with disabilities.

8. DANA Proposed Principles Arising from Reviews • Principle 6Specialist advocacy support and advice to be available across Australia for specific population groups and where specific advocacy knowledge is required • Principle 7Advocacy organisations to be formed in consultation with and remain connected to local communities.

9. DANA Proposed Principles Arising from Reviews • Principle 8Advocacy organisation funding to incorporate provision for advocacy development through: • Making connections between individual and system advocacy effort • Collaborating around systemic issues at regional, state and national levels • Developing skills, knowledge and expertise across the sector • Developing strong and effective bodies to advocate for advocacy.

10. DANA Proposed Principles Arising from Reviews • Principle 9Advocacy organisation funding should provide for development of relationships with key organisations and agencies including: • Disability service providers, carer/family organisations and government disability administration. • Generalist advocacy providers eg Legal Aid, Welfare Rights, Tenants Union, Consumer Protection, Financial Advice, COSS’s, etc • Statutory oversight bodies – eg Public Advocates, Guardianship Admin, Human Rights Commissions.

11. DANA Proposed Principles Arising from Reviews • Principle 10Advocacy organisation funding to be at a level to ensure the viability and sustainability of the organisations and make provision for: • indexation and growth, • movement in State/Territory awards, • safe and healthy working conditions for staff, • access for all people with disabilities • Costs arising from geographic location or reach of the organisation • Principle 11Government funding for the Advocacy Program to respond to unmet need for advocacy and bear an appropriate relationship to: • Number of people with disabilities • Funding for formal disability services • Funding for formal complaints mechanisms • The extent of inclusion of people with disabilities in community life

12. National Disability Advocacy Program (FaHCSIA) 2009 Current Sources of Disability Advocacy Funding

13. Current Sources of Advocacy Funding

14. Administration and Funding & Administration Options for Disability Advocacy • Which Level of Government? • Commonwealth Gov’t administration • State Gov’t administration • Continue current joint administration • Which Government Dept? • Disability Services/Human Services • Health • Justice/Attorney Generals • Prime Minister/Premier Office • Office for Disability • Other Options?

15. A New Model for Australia – DANA Proposal for a Statutory Advocacy Authority The proposed framework includes: • A new national approach to the administration of advocacy program funding through the creation of a Statutory Advocacy Authority, coupled with; • A commitment to support leadership and advocacy for the sector through recurrent funding of a national body representing advocacy agencies across all jurisdictions (DANA).Such a model is proposed on the basis that it better protects the independence of advocacy from the service provision, managerial and policy interests of government and encourages a strong sector voice to advocate for the protection and promotion of an effective advocacy effort for all Australians who are at risk of human rights violations or abuse and neglect.

16. Functions of Australian Advocacy Authority • Promotion of the value and importance of independent advocacy • Advocacy sector planning and development including identification of demand and development of comprehensive program framework incorporating the elements identified in the principles above • Management of core recurrent advocacy funding perhaps via State based officers • Development and Implementation of a single performance reporting and Quality Assurance Framework for advocacy providers • Research in relation to advocacy practice, administration & demand • Influence Government policy development and implementation in favour of advocacy  

17. Resourcing the Advocacy Authority and Programs Identify existing program funding across programs within scope NDA, NDAP & HACC Identify existing administration funding for these programs Progressive identify and respond to unmet needs with a program growth strategy.

18. Board for Advocacy Authority Composition of Board Commonwealth Govt Representative State Govt Representative from each state & territory Representatives from DANA, AFDO & ACOSS Independent Advocacy Experts

19. PROPOSAL ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES • ADVANTAGES • Advocacy specialists to administer the Program • One accountability and reporting framework for advocacy agencies • Strengthens capacity of advocacy effort to connect with implementation of UN CRPD and National Disability Strategy • Capacity to engage both Commonwealth and State involvement and commitment • Consistency of advocacy planning and development across the country • Greater independence from political and government interests • Greater size leading to greater capacity to generate philanthropic interest • DISADVANTAGES • Potential for both arms of government to abdicate responsibility • Less direct connection with local interests and knowledge • Our model seeks to address these disadvantages through a cooperative national model of administration.

20. Recommendations • A working group of Commonwealth and State administrators in relevant programs meets with representatives of DANA to discuss this proposal prior to any decisions being taken to realign current funding arrangements for independent advocacy. • A feasibility study is undertaken to map out the scope of the DANA proposal for a separate statutory authority and a timeframe for implementation. This should also include the possibility of an interim administrative structure while appropriate steps are taken to establish a new administrative framework.

21. Recommendations • All jurisdictions cooperate in identifying the funding in their current programs that might best sit within an independent advocacy program. This includes both funding to agencies for advocacy support as well as administration funding. • Government recognise DANA as the representative body for the independent disability advocacy sector and provide it with interim secretariat funding pending finalisation of the Review of the Disability Secretariat Program.

22. Recommendations • Government commit to progressively moving towards a level of funding for advocacy that responds to the unmet need for independent advocacy.

23. www.dana.org.auContact: Andrea Simmons Andrea.simmons@dana.org.au