Listening for Intersectionality: How Disabled Persons’ Organisations Have Improved Recognition of Difference in Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme

  • Cate ThillEmail author
Part of the The Politics of Intersectionality book series (POLI)


Intersectionality is widely debated as a methodological problem. This detracts attention from the substantive sites of social injustice mapped by intersectionality scholarship. It also misrecognises the inroads made by civil society organisations that have mobilised for attention to intersectionality in policymaking and service delivery. This chapter analyses the extent to which claims for recognition of intersectionality made by Disabled Persons Organisations (DPOs) are heard in disability policy and related policy fields. Social justice listening is offered as a methodology for policy research and analysis that addresses some of the challenges identified with applying intersectionality in practice. It finds that ongoing engagement between government and Disabled Peoples Organisations strengthens recognition of intersectionality.


  1. Anzaldúa, G. (1990). Bridge, Drawbridge, Sandbar or Island: Lesbians-of-Color Hacienda Alianzas. In L. Albrecht & R. M. Brewer (Eds.), Bridges of Power (pp. 261–231). Philadelphia: New Society.Google Scholar
  2. Ashby, C. (2011). Whose “Voice” Is It Anyway?: Giving Voice and Qualitative Research Involving Individuals that Type to Communicate. Disability Studies Quarterly, 31(4).Google Scholar
  3. Australian Cross Disability Alliance. (2015). Personal Stories and Testimonies: Accompanying Document to Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee Inquiry into Violence, Abuse and Neglect against People with Disability in Institutional and Residential Settings. Retrieved February 16, 2017, from
  4. Bickford, S. (1996). The Dissonance of Democracy: Listening, Conflict and Citizenship. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brueggemann, B. J. (2002). Lend me your Ear: Rhetorical Constructions of Deafness. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Coles, R. (2004). Moving Democracy: Industrial Areas Foundation Social Movements and the Political Arts of Listening, Travelling and Tabling. Political Theory, 32(5), 678–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins, P. H. (2000). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Rev. 10th Anniversary; 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Commonwealth of Australia. (2010). National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Their Children. Canberra: Council of Australian Governments. Retrieved February 24, 2017, from
  9. Commonwealth of Australia. (2016). Third Action Plan 2016–2019 of the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Their Children. Canberra: Council of Australian Governments. Retrieved February 4, 2017, from
  10. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalising the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1, 139–167.Google Scholar
  11. Department of Social Services. (2011). Second Action Plan 2013–2016 Moving Ahead of the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Their Children 2010–2020. Canberra: Council of Australian Governments. Retrieved February 1, 2017, from
  12. Department of Social Services. (2016). NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework. Canberra. Retrieved August 21, 2017, from
  13. Disability Reform Council. (2015). Information, Linkages and Capacity Building Policy Framework. Retrieved March 1, 2017, from
  14. Dobson, A. (2014). Listening for Democracy: Recognition, Representation, Reconciliation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dreher, T. (2009). Listening across Difference: Media and Multiculturalism beyond the Politics of Voice. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 23(4), 445–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fraser, N. (2008). Rethinking Recognition: Overcoming Displacement and Reification in Cultural Politics. In K. Olson (Ed.), Adding Insult to Injury: Nancy Fraser Debates Her Critics (pp. 129–141). London; New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  17. Frohmader, C., Dowse, L., & Didi, A. (2015). Preventing Violence against Women and Girls with Disabilities: Integrating a Human Rights Perspective. Tasmania and Sydney: Women with Disabilities Australia. Retrieved February 1, 2017, from
  18. Garland-Thomson, R. (2002). Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory. NWSA Journal, 14(3), 1–32. Scholar
  19. Garland-Thomson, R. (2005). Feminist Disability Studies. Signs, 30(2), 1557–1587. Scholar
  20. Hancock, A.-M. (2007). When Multiplication Doesn’t Equal Quick Addition: Examining Intersectionality as a Research Paradigm. Perspectives on Politics, 5(1), 63–79. Scholar
  21. Hankivsky, O. (2012). Women’s Health, Men’s Health, and Gender and Health: Implications of Intersectionality. Social Science & Medicine, 74(11), 1712–1720. Scholar
  22. Hankivsky, O., & Cormier, R. (2011). Intersectionality and Public Policy: Some Lessons from Existing Models. Political Research Quarterly, 64(1), 217–229. Scholar
  23. Hearn, J., Strid, S., Husu, L., & Verloo, M. (2016). Interrogating Violence against Women and State Violence Policy: Gendered Intersectionalities and the Quality of Policy in the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. Current Sociology, 64(4), 551–567. Scholar
  24. Hollinsworth, D. (2013). Decolonizing Indigenous Disability in Australia. Disability & Society, 28(5), 601–615. Scholar
  25. Kayess, R., Sands, T., & Fisher, K. R. (2014). International Power and Local Action – Implications for the Intersectionality of the Rights of Women with Disability. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 73(3), 383–396. Scholar
  26. Lloyd, M. (2001). The Politics of Disability and Feminism: Discord or Synthesis? Sociology, 35(3), 715–728. Scholar
  27. Lombardo, E., & Agustín, L. R. (2012). Framing Gender Intersections in the European Union: What Implications for the Quality of Intersectionality in Policies? Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 19(4), 482–512. Scholar
  28. Lombardo, E., & Agustín, L. R. (2016). Intersectionality in European Union Policymaking: The Case of Gender-Based Violence. Politics, 36(4), 364–373. Scholar
  29. Manuel, T. (2007). Envisioning the Possibilities for a Good Life: Exploring the Public Policy Implications of Intersectionality Theory. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 28(3–4), 173–203. Scholar
  30. May, V. M. (2014). “Speaking into the Void”? Intersectionality Critiques and Epistemic Backlash. Hypatia, 29(1), 94–112. Scholar
  31. McClelland, A., & Smyth, P. (2010). Social Policy in Australia: Understanding for Action (2nd ed.). South Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. McDonald, C., & Marston, G. (2005). Workfare as Welfare: Governing Unemployment in the Advanced Liberal State. Critical Social Policy, 25(3), 374–401. Scholar
  33. Meekosha, H. (2001). The Politics of Recognition or the Politics of Presence: The Challenge of Disability. In M. Sawer & G. Zappalà (Eds.), Speaking for the People: Representation in Australian Politics. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Meekosha, H., & Dowse, L. (1997). Enabling Citizenship: Gender, Disability and Citizenship in Australia. Feminist Review, 57, 49–72. Scholar
  35. Morris, J. (1993). Feminism and Disability. Feminist Review, 43, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. National Disability Insurance Agency. (2016). Information, Linkages and Capacity Building Commissioning Framework. Australian Department of Human Services. Retrieved March 1, 2017, from
  37. Newell, C. (2006). Disability, Bioethics, and Rejected Knowledge. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 31(3), 269–283. Scholar
  38. Office of Parliamentary Counsel. (2013). National Disability Insurance Scheme Act. No. 20. Retrieved from
  39. Oliver, M., & Barnes, C. (2012). The New Politics of Disablement. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parken, A. (2010). A Multi-Strand Approach to Promoting Equalities and Human Rights in Policy Making. Policy & Politics, 38(1), 79–99. Scholar
  41. People with Disability Australia, and Women with Disabilities Australia. (2015). Submission: Consultation Paper – Proposal for a National Disability Insurance Scheme Quality and Safeguarding framework. Retrieved August 21, 2017, from
  42. Probyn, F. (2004). Playing Chicken at the Intersection: The While Critic of Whiteness. Borderlands E-Journal, 3(2).Google Scholar
  43. Rees, T. (2005). Reflections on the Uneven Development of Gender Mainstreaming in Europe. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(4), 555–574. Scholar
  44. Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  45. Shakespeare, T. (2014). Disability Rights and Wrongs Revisited (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Soldatic, K., van Toorn, G., Dowse, L., & Muir, K. (2014). Intellectual Disability and Complex Intersections: Marginalisation under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 1(1), 6–16. Scholar
  47. Strid, S., Walby, S., & Armstrong, J. (2013). Intersectionality and Multiple Inequalities: Visibility in British Policy on Violence against Women. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 20(4), 558–581. Scholar
  48. Thill, C. (2015). Listening for Policy Change: How the Voices of Disabled People Shaped Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme. Disability & Society, 30(1), 15–28. Scholar
  49. Wadiwel, D. (2011). Proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme Human Rights Analysis. Retrieved January 31, 2017, from
  50. Women with Disabilities Australia, and Women with Disabilities Victoria. (2011). Submission in Response to the Productivity Commission’s Disability Care and Support Draft Report. Retrieved August 29, 2017, from

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Arts and SciencesThe University of Notre DameSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations