“DOES THE GOVERNMENT KNOW THE TRUE MEANING OF CO-DESIGN? ”

"Design is the intermediary between information and understanding." -- Hans Hoffman, artist and teacher

There are many within the disability community that are concerned as to whether the Government really knows the true meaning of Co-Design, or whether the concept of Co-Design is being confused with “Consultation”.

“Consultation” is when the Government has designed a program or service for people with disabilities , including its’ associated policies and has presented it to people with disabilities for feedback. The Government can choose to take this feedback on board or can ignore it. People with disabilities are not involved in designing the program or service.

With Co-Design, people with disabilities can be considered to be co-creators of the program or service as they are involved in every step of design process- from the conception through to implementation.

When the Government designs programs and services for people with disabilities and consults them, they are designing programs and services “for” people, when people wirh disabilities are involved in all stages of the design process, the Government are designing programs and services “with” people.

Historically, the Government has tended to design its programs and services FOR people with disabilities and not WITH them.

The lack of Co-Design by Governments in the past, has led to many harmful practices being bestowed upon people with disabilities, including institutionalisation and other forms of forced segregation.

Recently, there has been arguing over who should have responsibility for funding and providing services to people with disablities.

However, the people in which these decisions affect most- people with disabilities have not been consulted.

How can programs and services for people with disabilities be the most effective, when the end users of these programs and services- people with disabilities themselves are not involved in the design of such systems.

Recently, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 was passed in Parliament.

The bill seeks to make various amendments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, including to introduce a new definition of ‘NDIS supports’; expand National Disability Insurance Scheme rules relating to access requirements; empower the CEO to request information and reports relating to the participant; provide for new framework plans; and allow for the imposition of conditions on approval of quality auditors.

Recommendations in a Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee report have proven to be profoundly disrespectful to people with disabilities.

A number of disability advocacy organisations are deeply disappointed that the Senate Committee has not listen to the evidence and expertise of people with disability, families, supporters and organisations, who made extensive, and detailed submissions about the flaws in the proposed legislation.

The NDIS Amendment Bill needs significant amendment to make sure that people with disability don’t lose lifesaving disability support. .

People with disability feel a loss of trust in the Parliamentary process that promises to listen to them as significant reform is contemplated to the services and supports provided through the scheme.

The legislation as it stands will restrict support to some parts of a person’s disability, instead of their whole person. People with disability told the Senate Committee about how they do not fit into neat little boxes that can be assessed separately. This is unfair, difficult to implement and will result in significant hardship and harm for people with disability.

There is particular concern around the proposed needs assessment, which if not amended, will leave people with disability with little of the support they need to live their lives. The needs assessment must be grounded in human rights, ethical considerations and capture a person’s support needs, life stage, life circumstances and life transitions.

The needs assessment must not be a return to the scheme of ‘independent assessments’, either in part or full. This assessment process must not replicate the traumatic, unfair process that exists now, or was proposed through independent assessments. For these reasons, we insist that the Bill is amended to include whole of person assessment as noted in their submissions.

It is also believed that the legislation must be amended to ensure that co-design is a driver and central to NDIA reforms, to make sure changes are developed with our community. People with disability, families, supporters and organisations are the experts on disability support, and that must be reflected in further amendments.

The Government must be really clear about what is really meant by “Co-Design”, it is not paying lip service to people with disabilities or “consulting” with people wirh disabilities, “just to shut them up”. It is about actually involving them in the design of supports and services provided throughout the scheme.

Co-design and consultation are both approaches to involving stakeholders in decision-making processes, but they differ significantly in terms of depth of engagement, power dynamics, and outcomes.

While Co-Design requires in-depth involvement from people with disabilities. Consultations only represent superficial engagement with people with disabilities and thus, could be considered as only a box ticking exercise for the Australian Government.