Ms Rachel Cassen:

I thank Senator Higgins. She raised a lot of points. On time and space, it is not just a question of the technical aspect; it is also about process. It is a question of ensuring families with children with disabilities can undertake a process as a family, because families are not always on the same page on all these issues related to living a good and inclusive life. In an attempt to get families on the same page, or even reading the same chapter of the same book, we bring families away each year to a live-in residential event, a weekend retreat. We work with them on the question of what a good life looks like rather than on what constitutes a good service. Asking the right questions is really important. It is not really possible to work with families with children under the age of three, or children in arms. There is too much going on in such families and they need to settle and get to a point where they can focus on major needs beyond the daily routine of an infant. At that point, we introduce the notion of the good life, the ordinary life and the inclusive life, which links to all this good stuff and the thinking that if a child is not nursed and threaded into his or her local community from a very young age, it will be much harder for him or her to come back from a place of segregation and rejoin the normative life path. That is why we work with children in the context of their families from the age of three years.

We give families a process, a piece of time in which they are all welcome. There is a big welcome on the mat at all our events for them because many of them get used to being hidden in plain sight. They are excluded from the point of the child's diagnosis. The day they bring the child home from the hospital, they are excluded from many ordinary life events in their communities and become hidden in plain sight. Therefore, time is critical. Over years, we have conversations with families. They are welcome and they are invited out of their isolation to our events. We place great emphasis on hospitality, welcome, reciprocity and belonging. The process that the Senator described, beyond just a technical process, is important. The warm, human welcome is important.

That brings me on to the issue of design. Design is critical. In this regard, the Senator mentioned playgrounds but it is often the case that what we do in the name of inclusive design, while well intentioned, fails. For example, a swing surrounded by a fence for children with physical disabilities, which may be funded by the Lions club or another such charity, may be very well intentioned but it puts a physical barrier between the child using it and all the other children in the playground. While it is not the intention, it others them. Similarly, I see a rise in the installation of hubs on university campuses for neurodiverse students. We believe in LEAP that those hubs, although very well intentioned, are othering. I do not know whether it is positive to be seen to climb into one of those hubs. Does it, in fact, other people? We have to be very careful when we consider design for inclusion. We must consider whether what we are doing is clumsy. We need to kick the tyres of inclusion. If we call something inclusive, it is very often not, based on our experience in LEAP. It does not matter if we call autism spectrum disorder, ASD, classrooms units or classrooms; changing the label, or the plaque on the door of the building, does not really change what goes on inside. Many try to claim that autism units and classrooms are inclusive. By our definition, they are not.

By our definition, inclusion is what people your age are doing and what people from your culture are doing. It is what is typical, optimal and normative.

I will move on to discuss work. Sheltered work has no place in modern society. It is not compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD. Work enclaves have no place in modern society either. There were well-intentioned efforts at inclusion that put people with the same diagnostic label to work in a cafe. That was a feel-good thing. Such a person may get a wage and feel great. It is, in many ways, a valued role better than what those people had before. However, it is not good enough and we can do better. I challenge this committee to think carefully about the issues with placing people in work enclaves. It is a step forward from sheltered work but it is not yet good enough. It is not yet full inclusion in open employment.