Australian Human Rights Commission Submission to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – 25 July 2019 1 This submission is based on work that has been undertaken by the Commission in accordance with its mandate and functions, or otherwise on publicly available information. The Commission has brought the issues raised in this submission to the attention of the Australian Government. This submission provides information concerning disability discrimination experienced by key population groups in Australia and other thematic issues relating to disability discrimination. In relation to each section the Commission has referred to the relevant articles of CRPD engaged, the relevant paragraph of the Committee’s concluding observations on Australia’s first report (CO) and the Committee’s list of issues (LOI) and questions in relation to the second and third periodic report of Australia. 2 The Commission notes that the LOI did not include issues pertaining to Articles 10, 20 and 23. The Commission supports consideration of these matters by the Committee during the interactive dialogue. The Commission is concerned that people with disability in Australia do not enjoy their right to life on an equal basis with others (article 10). For example, people with intellectual disability experience over twice the rate of avoidable deaths (see paragraph 101). The Commission also considers that further measures are needed to ensure personal mobility with the greatest possible independence for all people with disability (article 20). This includes measures in respect of the NDIS (see paragraphs 24-28) and ensuring accessible environments (see paragraphs 48-54). Finally, the Commission is concerned that parents with disability, particularly those with intellectual disability, experience significant discrimination (article 23), including having a child removed from their care at disproportionately higher rates. Australian Institute of Family Studies, ‘Parental Intellectual Disability and Child Protection: Key Issues’ (December 2009) <https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/parental-intellectual-disability-and-child-protection-key-i>. 3 The Commission, in its submission under the Universal Periodic Review process, recommended that Australia’s human rights obligations be directly incorporated into Australian law. See: Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission under the Universal Periodic Review Process: Australia’s Second Universal Periodic Review (2015), 8. <https://www.humanrights.gov.au/submissions/australia-s-second-universal-periodic-review> 4 Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth). 5 George Williams and Daniel Reynolds, ‘The Operation and Impact of Australia’s Parliamentary Scrutiny Review for Human Rights’ 41(2) Monash University Law Review 469, 474–5; Australian Law Reform Commission, ‘Traditional Rights and Freedom -Encroachments by Commonwealth Laws’ (ALRC Report 129, 2 March 2016) <https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/freedoms-alrc129>. For example, some statements of compatibility devote cursory attention to assessing a draft law’s identified impingement on human rights and some simply assert (without due explanation) that a draft law is compatible with human rights even where an impingement on rights has been acknowledged. 6 The Commission recommends that the Australian Government implement the recommendations made by in the Australian Law Reform Commission, ‘Equality, Capacity and Disability in Commonwealth Laws’ (ALRC Report 124, August 2014) <https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/equality-capacity-disability-report-124>.. 7 University of New South Wales, Social Policy Research Centre, ‘Review of Implementation of the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020: Final Report’ (August 2018) 17 <http://doi.org/10.26190/5c7494b61edc4>. 8 Parliament of Australia, Senate Community Affairs References Committee, ‘Delivery of Outcomes under the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 to Build Inclusive and Accessible Communities’ (November 2017) Recommendation 5 51