Can Policy to Address Some Disability Rights Mitigate Weak Approaches to Others?

Abstract

Governments prioritize some rights over others because of policy constraints. We ask whether differential disability policy priorities can readdress other unrealized rights when applied to services for people with disabilities in boarding houses in Australia. The housing is inappropriate to their support needs and breaches their immediate right to unsegregated housing. Findings about the government-funded support showed that their well-being improved, but the housing increased their support needs and reduced their eligibility for suitable housing, implying that support policies that prioritize progressive realization rights are not successful where immediate realization rights to housing remain unaddressed. These findings about the negative social outcomes from ignoring human rights hierarchies have implications for policy priorities.

Keywords:

• citizenship
• disabled
• housing
• policy process
• social justice

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the project researchers (David Abello, Lesley Chenoweth, Adeline Lee, Gerry Redmond, Peter Siminski and Jacqueline Tudbull); people who participated in the research or commented on drafts at Towards A National Disability Studies Agenda, Disability Studies Conference Australia 2009 and ASSID Conference 2010. The research was commissioned by Disability Services Queensland. Ethics approval was from University of New South Wales.

Notes

¹We use the term “people with disabilities” to be consistent with the CRPD and Australian disability community preference for people first language.

²In Australia, boarding housing and hostels are private residential facilities rather than support services. Boarding houses provide room and basic laundering of bedding. Hostels provide room and board (meals and laundry, and some basic personal care services such as distribution of medication). These facilities are generally private, run for profit.