The news Canberra's infamous "boy in a cage" scandal is now being investigated by the United Nations is a wake-up call to anybody, inside government or out, who may still think this was just a storm in a teacup.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
That it came in the same week this newspaper broke the news a disability support worker had tied up an intellectually disabled woman at the request of her mother is very timely.
Both are clear examples of the inappropriate treatment of the disabled by those charged with their care and welfare.
The then 10-year-old boy at the centre of the cage scandal, which was first reported by The Canberra Times in March 2015, is autistic.
A student at an ACT primary school, he had behavioural issues and could be disruptive and aggressive.
The school's response was to commission a two-metre-by-two-metre cage made out of pool fencing for the classroom.
The boy was then confined in the cage on a number of occasions. In one instance he struggled so violently to get out he broke the lock.
Both cases are examples of sanctioned abuse by individuals, and in the case of the school, an institution, that thought such restraints were an acceptable tool.
They are not.
The failure of the Education Directorate to order the cage removed until the ACT Human Rights Commission intervened was a clear leadership fail.
In the case of the boy in the cage, the ACT government added insult to injury by ducking and weaving on the issue.
It even pressured The Canberra Times not to run a picture of the cage on the spurious grounds it was "not in the best interests of the child".
This is a hard case to make given the boy had been locked inside it by those charged with protecting his welfare.
One obvious lesson to take away from this issue is that if the Education Directorate accepts a child with challenges into a school, it needs to ensure the support is available to ensure that child can function there without detracting from the learning environment for other children or posing a risk to staff.
If forced restraint, used without the consent of the parents, was seriously considered to be the only way to deal with this case then the obvious next step was to reconsider whether the school was suitable for the child and the child was suitable for the school.
The case of the mother who told a support worker to tie up her daughter is not quite so clear cut.
One can only sympathise with the plight of families struggling to take care of an adult intellectually disabled child in a home setting.
While it is important that a clear message be sent that such conduct just isn't acceptable in the 21st century, this cannot be done in isolation.
Society, through the intercession of the state, has a responsibility to ensure families get the support they need to ensure such actions do not occur.