By any measure of moral progress, a society should be judged by how it treats those who are most vulnerable. Yet in Australia, people with disabilities continue to be treated not as citizens with equal standing, but as problems to be managed; an inconvenience to be contained within a labyrinth of bureaucratic delay and economic rationalisation.
The idea that disabled people are not as equal as others has a long history. Disabled people have often been treated as unwanted burdens to society. In theological terms, the existence of disabilities has been seen at various times as an indication of sinful affliction or of a divinely-ordained earthly suffering to be endured. These attitudes have been frequently accompanied by notions that disability bestows a unique physical, psychological and/or a spiritual purity that must be protected. There is currently a notable scholarly movement, particularly within Catholic theology, to establish a nuanced and more sophisticated method to interpret scripture regarding the concept of disability. And in secular circles, we hear the language of inclusion routinely used in relation to vulnerable populations, including those with disabilities. These are important developments. But it is worth considering just how marginalised people with disabilities remain within Australian society.
There are approximately 5.5 million Australians living with a form of disability — around 21 per cent of the population. And despite decades of rhetorical advancement and inclusionary language, the lived reality for these Australians is a story of persistent neglect. Members of this substantial and growing cohort of the population are significantly more likely to experience inequities across many aspects of life that further impact their physical, mental and social health. Consider, for example, that disabled people are more likely to be living in poverty. The ACOSS/UNSW report Poverty in Australia (2018) highlighted that of all Australians living in poverty, 40 per cent have a disability. If we consider only Australians with a disability, one in six are living in poverty. Compare that to Australians without a disability, with just over one in 10 living in poverty. The ACOSS report suggested that these estimates were likely to be conservative.
The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability in Australia highlighted that these experiences are widespread among people with disabilities. It also called attention to the impacts of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety on people with disabilities. Of note in the findings of the Royal Commission were the disparities in service access and the high rates of institutional abuse. The response of the Australian Government has been tepid. As of November 2024, the government accepted 13 recommendations in full and 117 in principle, another 36 were under consideration, and six were noted.
In addition to all of this, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) has faced ongoing criticisms about its stringent eligibility criteria and complex application processes; that funding allocated to recipients is often failing to cover essential needs; bureaucratic delays in approvals and reviews; examples of neglect and poor services; and reports of fraudulent practices by providers exploiting the system for financial gains.
In terms of housing accessibility, transport and risk of homelessness, people with disabilities are disproportionately impacted on all levels. They face increased risks of discrimination, exploitation, unemployment and underemployment. They earn less money when they work, have greater difficulty finding suitable accommodation and support services, and may avoid social situations such as shops and restaurants due to well-founded fears of poor treatment. Being treated as less intelligent is a common experience for people with disabilities. This is reflective of a lingering attitude which questions the equal worth of people with disability. In a time when cost of living pressures are erasing the last vestiges of an Australian middle class, we should not forget that those who are most marginalised in our society always suffer the most.
It is no exaggeration to say that people with disabilities, and those who care for and support them, face an unmitigated bureaucratic nightmare in Australia. Over the last 10 years, record numbers of people have been forced off Disability Support Payments (DSP) and onto Jobseeker payments (formerly Newstart). In December 2018, of the 210,690 individuals receiving Newstart and Youth Allowance, the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations (AFDO) reported that 26 per cent of recipients had a reduced capacity to work due to health conditions or disabilities.
One might suppose that this officiousness would surely not apply to people with ‘serious’ chronic conditions, but this supposition would be wrong. The AFDO reported in March 2021 that 376,287 people were shifted from the DSP onto Jobseeker. They highlighted that the ‘two largest groups represented in that number are people with chronic illness e.g., cancer, neurodegenerative illness and people with psychosocial impairment’. This is not an accidental oversight. This is an entire system which, as a matter of administrative principle, makes life harder for the unemployed, the sick and disabled. The capacity of government, in the guise of Centrelink or another similar entity, to ignore nuance and eschew empathy when dealing with the vulnerable remains extraordinary. For tens of thousands of people in need of compassion, the bureaucratic system instead causes great suffering, frustration and humiliation.
While the official language used in relation to people with disability has thankfully transformed over recent decades, there is something concealed behind these more politically correct conversations, the most obvious being the lack of voice people with disability have in the design and operation of the services they must use. The economic structures of neo-liberalism are embraced with near religious zeal by our major political parties. This type of approach emphasises managerial style corporatism, advocates for governmental cost cutting, and champions the privatisation of essential services. The end results are overly complex administrative initiatives which not only fail to do what they are meant to do, they shift the costs and administrative burdens for vital services from government to the private sector, non-government organisations and/or charities.
In short, Australian society remains resolutely disinterested in the idea of implementing the administrative changes repeatedly championed by people with disabilities. Despite the politically correct rhetoric of inclusion, people with disability remain an administrative problem to be managed by the neo-liberal system. In the same way disabled people were once marginalised and fetishised as charitable objects, neo-liberal Australia corals disabled people into social and economic systems not designed to ever met their needs. While the concept of inclusion is good, the practical outcomes being experienced by disabled people often do not match the lofty rhetoric. This is true across the Australian Catholic community, as it is in the wider Australian society.
As shown in responses to issues like the Royal Commission, NDIS or housing, the suggestions of disabled people are not taken as seriously as others. There is still often an undercurrent of indifference from wider society toward disability issues. This is patently obvious when it comes to the struggles people with disabilities face in relation to services, fair treatment, fair pay, and housing. While it remains customary to admire the courage and determination of people with disability and/or those who support them, there is a superficiality to these statements of support.
Further, it is still acceptable to discuss people with disabilities in extraordinary ways. Australian philosopher Peter Singer advocated that if parents wished to end the life of their unborn child because it has a disability, they should be allowed to do so. For anyone with even a cursory knowledge in the history of eugenics, particularly the Euthanasia Program and Aktion T4 under the Nazis, the idea that it could be ethical to kill anyone based on genetic inheritance is extraordinary. He has concluded that conditions such as Down syndrome, spina bifida and haemophilia make ‘the child’s life prospects significantly less promising than those of a normal child’. Although Singer stated he did not apply this maxim to disabled adults, it is not difficult to imagine what this might suggest to someone living with these conditions i.e. they are a burden on others; on society; and they are not a ‘normal’ person. He has further suggested, among other things, if a human being lacks rational-cognitive self-awareness, they do not meet the threshold for ‘personhood’. Therefore, it would be ‘ethical’ to euthanise such people. Could it be ethical to euthanise a newborn child with Down syndrome? According to Singer, apparently so.
In contrast to the perception of people with disabilities as blessedly innocent, aberrations, neo-liberal financial burdens, or lacking ‘personhood’, Australia has a well-established history celebrating the achievements of Paralympians. Every four years our Paralympians fly the flag, and there is always strong media interest. However, this is not a reflection of solidarity from the wider Australian community in relation to disability issues. There is a stark contrast between this cyclical moment of being embraced and what people with disability normally experience within Australian society. Australian sporting nationalism is conditioned on sporting and military efforts championing the underdog or ‘courage under fire’. In other words, Paralympians who win medals for Australia uphold the core nationalistic characteristics of bravery against the odds. If people with disabilities win medals or awards, they briefly provide a unique vehicle for Australian nationalistic pride. They have also shown themselves to be useful contributors to the nation despite their disadvantages. But what about those who do not win medals or do not participate at the Paralympics? What about their daily struggles, issues or obstacles? If people with disabilities provide narratives of personal inspiration for wider Australian society, these lives are given attention. If not, they can be ignored.
International Day for People with Disabilities falls on 3 December each year, a significant date for millions all over the world, and yet most Australians it passes with little fanfare. Most are unaware it even exists. This low-level awareness of disability issues is depressingly common in Australia. And this silence is not incidental, but rather seems an apt reflection of whose stories we hear and whose we ignore.
Those with lived experience of disability (whether people with disabilities or those caring for them), need to be listened to and have critical input into the world they navigate. It is time to centre their perspectives in the institutions, policies, and public discourses that shape their lives.
It is not enough to praise people with disabilities for their strength or perseverance. It is only through considering the common humanity and experiences of those who have been forced to endure so much for so long that bureaucratic, institutional and church structures will change for the better. And until that happens, the most vulnerable will remain on the margins, out of sight and out of mind, not because of fate or misfortune, but because of choices we continue to make.
Adam Hughes Henry is a Canberra based academic, author and musician. He is an associate editor of The International Journal of Human Rights (Taylor & Francis).