“The Historical Treatment of People With Disabilities in Australia”

People didn’t always see a person with a disability who had to use a ramp or elevator as people who have been given unnecessary privileges. But I run into that often now. People are saying, ‘Why do we have to go to great expense for these people?’”

Major Owens

Australia does not have a proud disability history. Historical struggles can be traced to the early settlement of Australia by European invaders who segregated the “insane” on hulks (large ships used to transport convicts from England) until buildings could be erected to accommodate them (State Records NSW, 2006). People with a physical disability were portrayed in terms of a “lack of worth” throughout Australian history, which depicted them as invalids and as defectives. The Eugenics movement had a strong influence in Australia in the early 1900s through to the 1930s, where widespread practices of Social Darwinism separated people with disability from definitions of humanity (Carlson, 2001).

Today, within Australian society, people with disability continue to be located as “other” and therefore remain stuck within modernity. Australians with disability are more likely to be imprisoned, institutionalised, or assaulted, receive welfare benefits, or to be restrained, sterilised, or aborted (Bolt, 2004; Dowse, 2004; Frohmader, 2002; Sherry, 2008). In contrast, their non-disabled counterparts are more likely to be found in places of higher education, in their own homes, and in paid positions of power, including positions within the disability sector (Leipolt, 2005; Goggin & Newell, 2005).

Australian disability history is characterised by objectification and control supported by tyrannical medical and professional discourses which imposed regimes, restricted opportunities, and reinforced poverty (Carling-Jenkins, 2008). People with disability in Australia have been fragmented, institutionalised, marginalised and commodified as a result. In addition, there has been no cohesive movement of influence, power and identity to support them in their rights struggles (Newell, 1996; Russell, 1998). Research into the positioning of disability and the Disability Rights Movement in Australia, revealed that the historical and continuing struggles of people with disability have been reinforced through processes of modernity (Carling-Jenkins, 2008). These processes were evident through four main themes: the denial of citizenship; segregation within institutions; living on the margins and the ‘disabled body’.

Within Australia there has been a disparity between the experience of the privileged who enjoy full citizenship rights without question (i.e., full political and economic enfranchisement and full participation in society) and people with disability (as the “other”) who have routinely had their humanity and capacity questioned and cost-effectiveness calculated through criteria not imposed upon people without disability (Cocks, 1996; Goggin & Newell, 2005; Jolley, 1999; Meekosha, 2000). Such questioning and calculation has led to the denial of full citizenship. While historical seclusion within institutions represented a physical separation from these rights, post-deinstitutionalisation Australia continues to routinely deny full citizenship to many people with disabilities.

There is a continued denial of the right to vote for many people with an Intellectual Disability,Acquired Brain Injury, or with a mental illness for example (Cocks, 1996; Goggin & Newell, 2005). In addition, people with physical and sensory disabilities are faced with inaccessible voting processes and procedures (Physical Disability Council of Australia, 2000).

Subsequently, people with physical disabilities have been asked to vote in venue car parks or asked to post their votes, while people with sensory disabilities have been forced to use a third party to record their vote (Crane, Clark, & Simpson, 2005; Goggin & Newell, 2005; Ozdowski, 2002). Each of these solutions has raised concerns regarding the privacy of the secret ballot system.

Historically, people with disabilities have been considered sick or unhealthy. Being healthy and having a disability have been perceived as a contradiction in terms. Disability has been seen as an issue blamed on the individual with a disability. Quality of life of individuals with disability was often seen---and still is by some---to be poor by others who have very negative views about disability, even though only an individual can determine the quality of life of his or her own life.

In the 1800s disability began to be viewed as an issue that had individual health and public health implications, as well as social and policy implications. Disability was seen as a medical problem due to disease, trauma, or other health conditions. This generally led to the medical model of disability, which viewed disability as an issue of the person with a disability. The goal of medical management was cure of the disabling condition or modification of behaviors of the individual with a disability. The medical model viewed physicians as the experts who knew what was best for those with disabilities. Those with disabilities were not seen as capable of knowing what they needed in the way of health care and other services.

In 1908, the Australian Government introduced the Invalid Pension which increased the independence of people with disability as well as provided them with acknowledgment, to some extent, as recognised members of the society.

After the First World War and the return of?many?soldiers with impairments, the government funded rehabilitation programs. With the?increased numbers of people with disability they?all couldn’t be institutionalised and this demographic change acted as a step towards disability as a better recognised condition.

The consequences of the Second World War had a similar impact and strengthened the belief that people with disability have a right to lead decent lives. The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service (CRS) was established and volunteer organisations?extended their services to people with disability.

In the 1970s, people with disability who had?professional qualifications and were?working in the area of rehabilitation began?a shift in Australian society from services provided to people with disability by people without disability only, to the involvement of people with disability interested in their own treatment and by extension, in their own movement.

Up until the late 1970’s, the views of persons with disability were?mainly filtered through the voices of disability service providers, professionals working in the area of disability and family members. This was also occurring?at the international level.?At the time, the key international disability organisation, Rehabilitation International, had a policy that while?people with disability could attend its periodic international conference as observers,?they were not permitted to speak. People with disability strongly protested against this policy at the 1980 conference of Rehabilitation International, held in Winnipeg, Canada, where a decision was made to establish a new international organisation of and for people with disability. The organisation founded was Disabled Peoples International, which now has members in over 160 countries throughout the world.

Disabled Peoples International held its first World Assembly in Singapore in?the context of the International Year of?Disabled Persons (IYDP) which had been declared by the United Nations. During this year,?people with disability?began to think of?themselves more as a public issue?rather than a private problem. The concept of systemic?oppression also emerged as a motive for the development of a social movement in Australia and overseas. While, individuals?and groups?did advocate?for the rights of people with disability before the IYDP, this action was mostly based around a medical diagnostic group or specific?issue.

In 1981, disability became more than a diagnosis and something to be dealt with by medical professionals. People with disability discovered the social nature of their condition and became united in claiming self-determination and self-representation to overcome their social oppression as a group.

In 1986, disability rights advocacy was recognised as a programme area to be funded under the Disability Services Act 1986.

Since then,?disability activism and advocacy began?a sustained focus on several important cornerstones of disability self-determination;?a general move?away from institutional type services to community based services; relocation of people with physical disability from hostels and nursing homes into community housing, enlightened mental health legislation in various states, the establishment of ‘public advocates’ and guardianship boards in most states, the Disability Services Act 1986 (DSA) and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA).

The history of disability in the West has been characterized by the progressive development of two mains models of disability: the medical/genetic model of disability, and the rights-based model of disability. These models, or constructions of disability, have set the parameters for our response to people with disability. Through time, these models have become more sophisticated, yet their essence remains constant – otherness.