8 reasons Brooke van Velden should save the Individuals with Disabilities committee, as told by her own staff

Tone explainer: This piece uses some sarcasm to express frustration towards Minister Brooke van Velden’s decision to cut the Lottery Individuals with Disabilities (IWD) committee, against advice.

We’ve been thinking here at The D*List office, how can we best explain why it’s such a huge mistake for Minister Brooke van Velden to cut the Lottery Individuals with Disabilities (IWD) committee (the people who make decisions about disabled people’s requests for Lottery grants funding)? If you need a recap on this story that’s been unfolding over the last few months, read our previous pieces here and here.

Thankfully, Brooke van Velden’s own department has done the job for us! In the documents we received after submitting an Official Information Act (OIA) request about the decision to disestablish the IWD Committee, DIA staff outline in fairly stark terms how inappropriate and “detrimental” it would be to cut the IWD committee. As we know, the Minister went on to disestablish the committee anyway, against advice. So just in case the Minister somehow missed these the first time, we thought we’d collect them here to encourage some reflection.

1. “Communities could be detrimentally affected by the change”

Nice and simple. Disabled people may suffer as a result of the loss of funding, or the increased barriers to accessing this funding. That’s pretty clear, we reckon.

2. “Funding…may not be guaranteed to the same extent through the new committee structure”

As we now know, disabled individuals who apply for funding for things like mobility vehicles will now be considered against the needs of disabled organisations who cater to larger groups of people (as well as other types of funding applications, for all sorts of different things). Although individual needs absolutely need to be catered to, they may lose out when weighed up against larger-scale operations if funding for individuals is not ringfenced. And who would want that?!

3. “The disestablishment of the specialist national committees may raise concerns from sectors that rely on funding from those committees”

An accurate prediction of how disabled communities reacted to the announcement.

4. “Different people with different strengths require different approaches and resources.”

And yet, disabled people’s needs will likely now be assessed by people with no knowledge or experience of disability, in a generalist committee. Ever heard of ‘nothing about us without us’, Minister?

5. “The increased workload could slow grant decisions and undermine efficiency”

Now that funding decisions are going through a much smaller number of committees, each committee will have far more applications to respond to, meaning they are unlikely to get the same time or attention they would have before. In one of the documents we received in response to our OIA request, it says that 20% of ALL applications were from disabled individuals: “Currently the Department receives (on average) over 1000 applications annually from these individuals to the specialist committee, making up about one-fifth of all current applications received for Lottery Grants funding”.

6. “[Ringfenced funding for disabled people will] progress the Board’s strategic direction…in a way that is unlikely to be achieved without targeted funding”

The person that wrote this probably understands the difference between equality and equity.

7. “Specialist expertise is essential for delivering equitable and well-informed funding decisions”

It’s almost like someone with no knowledge of disability can’t appropriately make decisions about the needs of disabled people! Once again, have you heard of ‘nothing about us without us’, or?

8. “Subject knowledge expertise and/or lived experience…could not be appropriately provided via advisory input”

This point was so good they expressed it twice, in slightly different ways. The second quote was: “Provision of advisory input would not be sufficient for robust and equitable decision-making”. It’s not enough to receive ‘advice’ from disabled people. Disabled people should be involved in the decision-making. How many people will lose access to funding because someone who doesn’t understand them, decided they didn’t need a mobility vehicle or a support animal?

Thanks again to those DIA staff who put together these well-evidenced, thoughtful, compassionate arguments as to why the IWD committee should be saved. It’s good to know that someone is listening to the concerns of disabled communities.