Achieving disability justice requires more than good intentions

This week UNSW celebrates its 5th annual Diversity Festival. In 2023, the event comes at a time when we await the release of the final report of the Disability Royal Commission. While the experiences of people with disability may have had, relatively speaking, greater visibility in recent years, people with disability continue to face discrimination and exclusion.

Whether direct or indirect, conscious or subconscious, ableist assumptions permeate the physical and other spaces we occupy, the personal interactions in which we engage, and the economic and political structures that underlie so many aspects of our lives. Understanding that there is not a singular shared experience of disability, and that disability justice is inextricably linked to social justice is vital to recognising and acting upon the diverse and complex barriers that people with disability navigate every day.

Dr Leah Williams, Lecturer at UNSW Law & Justice, explores this further with Jordon Steele-John - an Australian Greens Senator for Western Australia and a passionate disability rights advocate who played a leading role in the campaign to establish the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability .

Dr Williams: Senator Steele-John, when you first entered the Senate, you made a number of public comments about access challenges at the Australian Parliament House (APH). For example, in 2017 you noted that while the public areas of APH had been upgraded to meet accessibility standards, the employee areas had not. Has this now been rectified?

Senator Steele-John: Improving the accessibility of the Australian Parliament House is ongoing. For me to enter the Senate, many changes were made quickly, especially to the Senate chamber. The process to fix broader accessibility issues with the building has not been so quick. Of course, I am only one person, with one type of disability and that manifests in ways specific to me. Upgrading the building one disabled person at a time is obviously not the most efficient way to get the job done and I am really pleased that over the last couple of years there has been a notable perception shift and coordinated effort to address accessibility.

Physical accessibility is just one piece of the puzzle of course. Right now, the Parliament are running a broad review of the accessibility of Parliament House. My team and I have worked with the group who are completing the access review of Parliament House, to push the scope of the review beyond physical access needs. They have been very receptive and are now exploring adjustments to create a more sensory-friendly environment and rectify the wayfinding issues in the building for example. There is still a way to go but it is a relief to see accessibility finally made a priority.

Do you have any thoughts or reflections on how our societal attitudes to disability are reflected in the upgrading of publicly accessible areas but not employee areas?

While it was absolutely of the utmost importance that the public spaces of Parliament House were upgraded as quickly as possible, failing to do so for the employee areas of Parliament House made it clear to me that even in our highest decision-making spaces, there was an ableist assumption that disabled people would not and did not work in those spaces - that the only way a disabled person would find themselves in that building is to visit.

To an extent I think that expectation still remains now and I believe a big part of why that expectation lingers, is that many people outside of the disability community are not aware of the diversity amongst disabled folks in terms of how vast the disabled experience is. Many people still think of disability as a very distinct thing that presents in very specific and obvious ways. The idea that you could be sharing a workspace with disabled folks everyday and not realise it - it’s a journey that my team and I have tried to take people.  

I am grateful that more people are being attuned and receptive to these ideas now and that we are making progress towards a more accessible Parliament House but I also do not want to downplay the impact that lack of accessibility has had over time and the impact of the message it sends.

It is discriminatory and derogatory to assume that disabled people would never be elected representatives for their communities. It also emphasizes to any disabled person that might find themselves working or navigating through those areas of Parliament House reserved for employees and Parliamentarians; that this place was not built for you. No one ever expected that someone like you could hold this position of power or even work for someone who does.

These are clearly outdated and harmful viewpoints that I believe most people working in the building would either not hold, or claim to not hold and that’s exactly why I think it’s so important that the conversations we have about access do not end there. Converting inaccessible spaces into accessible ones is always more laborious than creating accessible spaces in the first place. It takes time, funding, coordination and planning, and we certainly will not reach that goal carried by good intentions alone.  

You have previously described disability as a social construct grounded in the failure of society to recognise and adapt to the differing needs and abilities of citizens. Can you elaborate on the implications of this societal focus on limitations rather than strengths?

It is important to hold space for disabled people to discuss the challenges that they face in a typically inaccessible society and for the wider community to acknowledge and respond to those challenges. That said, in my experience, societal focus on limitations rather than strengths leads to deficit framing. Deficit framing plays into the tragedy and charity models of disability, painting disabled people as helpless victims. No disabled person is ever going to consume content like that and feel better about themselves as a result. Additionally, consciously or subconsciously it feeds ableist ideas, and encourages non-disabled people to view us disabled folks as incapable and by extension, inferior.

A broader implication of looking at disability through the lens of limitation is that it fails to acknowledge the genuine strengths that all sorts of different disabilities allow people to bring to the table. Recently, I heard this discussion play out in relation to neurodiversity and I believe many of the theoretical underpinnings of the neurodiversity movement can be applied to the border disability space.

People are not all supposed to be the same. Neurodivergent brains can definitely struggle to exist in so many of the environments, because those environments were not built with their needs in mind.

A broader implication of looking at disability through the lens of limitation is that it fails to acknowledge the genuine strengths that all sorts of different disabilities allow people to bring to the table.

I hope that the mainstream will understand how to apply accommodations for folks with invisible disabilities, with the same ease as they can understand that a wheelchair user like me needs a ramp instead of stairs to enter a building. The reality is that in the right environment, neurodivergent brains can do pretty incredible things that neurotypical brains cannot. It’s a normal and natural part of human diversity, just as many other forms of disability are. Another example of this that I’ve seen increasingly in popular culture is the idea of Deaf Gain. To me this hits a similar note in that it gives us a framework for understanding the benefits of an array of different ways of being, communicating and existing in space.

Everyone loses when we only consider disability through earlier models, through limitation and deficit framing. Ableism as a system of oppression is intertwined with so many others, like colonialism, white supremacy, misogyny and queerphobia. True disability justice cannot be achieved without achieving justice alongside all of these spaces. We can’t get to liberation, just a few people at a time.

Australia is a ‘representative democracy’, though there is often criticism that our Parliament does not adequately reflect the diversity of our citizens. Do you think the representativeness of Parliament is improving?

I think it’s fair to say that representative democracy is improving in Federal Parliament in a general sense. However, at the end of the day the people we elect to Parliament, their job is to make decisions that impact every single person in this country everyday; and right now the parliament doesn’t represent everyone.

Of course, all political parties must take more active steps to select diverse people to be their candidates, but it mustn't stop there. More parties and Members of Parliament must start deeply engaging with the diverse people in their electorates. If we are successful at electing more diverse people we must ensure there are supports for them. There must be genuine and holistic efforts made to ensure the Parliament is a fair and safe workplace for them. There are definitely more people in Parliament that want to make this a priority than there have been previously - but in my opinion a genuine funding and resourcing commitment to ensure this is actionable, still does not exist.

If in 2023 Parliament House is still failing to provide a safe culture and environment for women (who make up almost roughly 40% of the workforce in that building) - where does this leave people of color, queer people, gender diverse people, First Nations people or disabled people?

Over the past year there has been a lot of public attention on Parliament House and the safety of that workplace for the women who work there. If in 2023 Parliament House is still failing to provide a safe culture and environment for women (who make up almost roughly 40% of the workforce in that building) - where does this leave people of color, queer people, gender diverse people, First Nations people or disabled people? If we consider how the Australian Parliament first started, as a workplace exclusively reserved for rich white cismen - then yes it has improved. But considering how diverse our nation actually is today, that is certainly not currently reflected in the chamber I roll into. We still have a long way to go.

Your efforts, both before and during your time as a Senator, have spanned a wide range of issues including climate justice, refugee and human rights, defense and peace, mental health, and disability advocacy. Acknowledging your significant achievements in the area of disability, especially in campaigning for the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation of People with Disability, do you ever feel that your disability, or your age, contribute to you being taken less seriously on non-disability-specific issues?

Perhaps at times my disability or age have contributed to being taken less seriously, ultimately I believe that my disabled lived-experience has had a positive influence on my role, and that far outweighs the negative impact of someone not taking me as seriously in other areas of my work. That’s not to say that it never annoys me when that happens but I have found it happens less the longer I have been in the job. Maybe it’s because I’m getting older actually!? In all seriousness though, it is also really important to acknowledge that in a place that historically has given an awful lot of privilege and power to some groups over others - even though I entered the Senate as a disabled young person, I still entered as a cisman.

I will not deny that I had initial fears when I entered my role. After all, at that time, I was the youngest person ever elected to the Senate. However, when the Disability Royal Commission (DRC) was finally confirmed, many of my doubts were cast aside. If a disabled person hadn’t happened to roll into the Senate at pretty much the exact time I did, I’m honestly not sure if the DRC would have gotten off the ground. So I understood that I was there for a reason and that reason felt so huge that nothing else really mattered.

Disability justice is everyone’s goal to achieve and it shouldn’t have taken a disabled person to enter the senate to convince the government to care enough about abuse, violence, exploitation and neglect of disabled people to make the DRC happen - but it did. So, while there have been moments where my age or disability may have cast a shadow in the minds of some and even lead to some initial insecurity within myself, it has a broader mission. The collective purpose, and the resilience of our community ultimately defines my journey. Disability advocacy remains a cornerstone of mine and my team's work, but it is a facet of a larger tapestry of justice and equality that we must all strive to weave together.

Image: Sen. Jordan Steele-John and Member for Melbourne Adam Bandt celebrate the vote on a Royal Commission into the violence, abuse and neglect of disabled people passing in the House of Representatives at Parliament House, Canberra (Feb 2019).

Do you feel any pressure being a public figure with a disability?

As the first wheelchair user elected into the Senate, I felt the weight of the disability community’s expectations for sure - and rightly so. They had to rebuild part of the Senate just so I could physically get in the building. My first day at my new job was on the news because of it!

It felt like there were a lot of eyes on me. And I knew that so many of those eyes were disabled people like myself. Disabled people, we’re overlooked so often by the people in that building (and outside of it to be honest). To have one of our own on the inside - of course I understand why that was a big deal. I felt like I was representing a lot more than just myself and my party and I still feel that now.

In the moment I was breaking one social norm by rolling instead of walking through the chamber door. But simultaneously it was about a lot more than just that one social norm. So many of the things the community and I have achieved together since I was elected - I think a lot of them wouldn’t have been possible without a disabled person in a position of power, someone on the inside to push them as hard and fast as they deserved. When we talk about diversity and having more diverse leadership in parliament, that’s the point! I think people still so often miss that point.

Do you have any advice for workplaces in relation to employing individuals with disabilities?

If you are bringing disabled people into a workplace where they have not been previously and you are not simultaneously examining the culture that led to that lack of diversity in the first place, then you are not truly addressing the problem.

The most effective ways to build a more accessible and inclusive workplace, in my experience, are largely things that sound really simple but are not always executed particularly well. Listening for example! Encouraging open communication and creating an environment safe enough for people to disclose their disabilities and express their access needs is essential - and a lot of employers miss this step. Being genuinely flexible and open minded in your approach to finding solutions that work for everyone is also a really simple but important action that can go a long way in changing a workplace's culture for the better.

If you are bringing disabled people into a workplace where they have not been previously and you are not simultaneously examining the culture that led to that lack of diversity in the first place, then you are not truly addressing the problem.

If you are new to this space and do not have much knowledge about disability, take the initiative to educate yourself and do not shift the burden of that education onto your disabled team members. It is not the responsibility of your newly hired disabled team member to educate you or the entire workplace on why these changes are important. Of course, their lived experience carries tremendous value but if using their lived experience to educate you and your existing team members is not a specific requirement of their role then it is their choice whether or not to share it. The betterment of your organisation should never rely on their forced and unpaid emotional labor. It needs to be a collective effort and priority.