• Home
• Report
• About the Consultation
• Who's who
• Terms of Reference
• About human rights in Australia
• Share your views
• Public submissions
• Public Hearings
• Consultation news
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Contact us

Appendix C   Colmar Brunton devolved consultation report: summary

Executive Summary

Background and method

As part of the National Human Rights Consultation, two research projects have been undertaken in the Australian community.  One of these is focussed at the community level, consisting of focus groups in each state and territory followed by a national telephone survey to identify and measure prevailing attitudes and opinions within the general community.  The other, known as the Devolved Consultation component, was a qualitative study to better understand the experiences and opinions of groups who are marginalised in society or thought to be specifically vulnerable to their rights being threatened or violated. 

The Devolved Consultation reported here involved small group discussions with people from a number of groups.  These sessions were organised by service providers and peak bodies who work in the area, and interviews were also conducted with the contacts at these organisations.  The discussions and interviews focussed on understanding the practical, day-to-day experiences of these groups to provide better understanding of the real world impacts of the concepts discussed more theoretically in other parts of the Consultation. 

Nine group sessions and nine interviews were conducted in Sydney and Wagga Wagga in June and July 2009.  The groups involved were: homeless people; people with a mental illness and with a physical disability; recently arrived refugees, immigrants and those recently released from immigration detention; ex-prisoners; the aged; and people with drug or alcohol dependencies. 

Key findings

Who does not get a fair go

All of the groups involved either explicitly reported that they do not get a fair go, or described situations in which clearly they were not.  A number of factors that impacted on getting a fair go were seen:

• People who have limited functionality or who are outside of the ‘norm’ tend to get less of a fair go.  This is particularly the case for those who cannot communicate or ‘defend’ themselves. 
• Individuals who fall into more than one vulnerable group, or at the intersection of vulnerable groups, were particularly worse off.
• Financial problems are often a consequence or correlate of the experiences of these marginalised groups, exacerbating the problems they experience.
• Indigenous Australians and Carers were two groups who were commonly identified, even by people themselves in these marginalised groups, as having their rights compromised.

What rights are at risk

In the general Australian community, the benefits of the most fundamental rights relating to survival can mostly be taken for granted, and attention then turns to higher level rights associated with expression and development.  However, for those in the most vulnerable or marginalised groups, it is precisely these survival-type rights that are most threatened.  Food, shelter, personal safety and access to medical care are all at risk for many of these groups. 

The right to dignity, a concept which underlies much of human rights, is also threatened or absent for many groups.

Many people in these marginalised groups report difficulties with being able to ‘move on’ from their situation.  Having to disclose past behaviours or experiences, even though they may refer to a past phase of their lives, continues to impact on their current experiences, and mostly in a negative way.  One of the more widespread problems for these groups appears to be obtaining employment, with their past often making them unattractive to employers or uncompetitive against other applicants. 

Problems faced in getting a fair go

A lack of awareness and understanding of human rights is a real problem for these groups, not just the inconvenience or curiosity it is to the general community.  From both people and agencies, they feel that a lack of clearly understood rights prevents them getting the same opportunities that others do.  Their own lack of knowledge means that often they are not even sure whether they have a legitimate complaint or not.  A perceived lack of easily accessible and understandable information about rights perpetuates this problem.

Other problems these groups face disproportionately to the general community include not being as able to keep up with technology, negative stereotyping, and not being able to access documentation they are required to have to utilise services or for other processes. 

How protection can be improved

A written document outlining the rights of all groups in society was seen by many of the marginalised and vulnerable groups to be a necessary step before any rights could be consistently protected.  This would be expected to provide guidance for what was perceived as a general goodwill to do the right thing in the Australian community.  It would also serve an important role for educating the community, organisations and themselves about what rights they had.

Service delivery was seen as a major area where improvements were possible – largely because this is where the actual day to day experience often derives from.  Processes designed more for functioning people in ‘normal’ situations were a cause of frustration; complex bureaucratic processes were higher barriers to many of these groups than the general community; and a lack of caring case management further marginalised some groups. 

Generally, in relation to human rights, enhancing service delivery was felt to come down to four factors:

1. Ensuring all staff within service providers know, understand and uphold the rights of those receiving services.
2. Ensuring that service providers, government departments and health workers show respect and empathy when dealing with vulnerable groups.
3. Ensuring that vulnerable groups are treated the same as other members of society.
4. Designing services and service delivery more around the needs, barriers, and limitations of those using the service.

It was also felt that a ‘statute of limitations’ on having to disclose historical information would assist many people in these groups to move back into the general community more easily by limiting the impact of their past on their present and future.

Issues for individual groups

A number of issues were raised by the individual groups.  Some of these crossed over groups, while others were specific to particular groups.  The table below summarises these issues.