Policy, lived experience and practical perspectives on disability, neurodiversity and systems reform.
By Yoshiko Yano, Founder & Director, NeuroThrive Australia
October 2026
Fighting alone: access to justice for people with psychosocial disability
I once sat at the Fair Work Commission as the sole advocate for a person with psychosocial disability. Across from us was an employer represented by experienced legal counsel.
On paper, both parties had access to the same process. In practice, they arrived with very different resources.
The person I was supporting had to understand procedural requirements, organise evidence, explain difficult circumstances and participate in conciliation while also managing their mental health. The employer had professional representation.
That experience stayed with me because it illustrated an important distinction: a system can be formally available without being equally accessible.
The burden of navigating the system
I have supported people with psychosocial disability in two matters before the Fair Work Commission. In both cases, I helped prepare written submissions, supported the person through conciliation and presented their case. Both matters ultimately settled with compensation.
Before returning to Australia, I also spent several years in the United States writing advocacy letters on behalf of people with disability. This included identifying relevant legal protections and coordinating supporting medical evidence from treating doctors.
Different systems were involved, but many of the barriers were remarkably similar.
Legal and administrative processes often assume that people can understand unfamiliar language, organise large amounts of information, meet deadlines, gather evidence and explain themselves clearly under pressure.
For a person experiencing significant mental ill-health, those tasks can become considerably harder.
A person may need medical evidence to explain why they were unable to meet a workplace requirement, yet obtaining that evidence requires appointments, money and an understanding of what information will actually assist their case. They may receive lengthy formal correspondence at a time when they are already distressed. They may be expected to respond quickly and confidently when the circumstances themselves affect concentration, communication or executive functioning.
The issue is not that people with psychosocial disability lack capability. It is that systems often expect consistent capacity regardless of what someone is experiencing at the time.
The same pattern appears outside the justice system
I have seen similar barriers through my work with NeuroThrive Australia.
When NeuroThrive gathered confidential accounts for an ABC Four Corners investigation into ADHD telehealth services, people described difficulties obtaining appropriate assessment and care, uncertainty about where to seek help and problems navigating fragmented services. Where people appeared to require further clinical support, we referred them to appropriate services.
The context was different from the Fair Work Commission, but the underlying problem was familiar.
People were expected to understand a complicated system, assess the quality of the service they had received, work out what should happen next and advocate for themselves when something had gone wrong.
The people most in need of assistance can therefore face the greatest burden in obtaining it.
Access to justice requires more than a pathway
Victoria’s disability policy framework recognises disability advocacy and the justice system as important areas for reform. It also takes an intersectional approach, recognising that disability can overlap with other forms of structural disadvantage.
The Disability Royal Commission likewise highlighted the importance of accessible information, advocacy and improving the experiences of people with disability within justice systems.
These frameworks reinforce a basic point: access should be assessed by whether a person can realistically use a system, not simply by whether that system exists.
There are several practical ways to improve this.
Independent advocacy should be easier to find and access. People should not need detailed knowledge of a legal, employment, disability or health system before they can locate help. Earlier access to advocacy can also prevent problems escalating.
Processes should be designed for a wider range of participants. Plain-English correspondence, clearly explained evidence requirements, accessible ways of participating and reasonable procedural flexibility can reduce barriers without undermining fairness.
Obtaining supporting evidence should be simpler. Medical evidence can be critical, but people are often left to work out for themselves what documentation is relevant. Clearer information for individuals and health professionals could reduce unnecessary delay and cost.
Decision-makers should consider capacity to participate, not merely formal equality. Giving two parties the same procedure does not necessarily place them in an equal position when one has professional representation and the other is navigating disability, financial pressure or significant distress.
Gender and disability cannot be separated
These barriers also need to be considered through an intersectional lens.
A woman with disability may be navigating mental ill-health alongside caring responsibilities, financial insecurity, workplace inequality or experiences of violence. Disability does not replace those other circumstances. They can interact and intensify the difficulty of seeking help.
That matters in practical policy design. A process that appears accessible when disability is considered in isolation may look very different when a person’s full circumstances are taken into account.
Lived experience is evidence
One of the most useful things policymakers can do is listen carefully to the people who have actually attempted to use the systems they are trying to improve.
They know where people become lost. They know which letters are difficult to understand, which deadlines create problems, which evidence is difficult to obtain and at what point someone is likely to disengage altogether.
Individual experiences should not automatically be treated as representative of everyone. But when the same barriers appear repeatedly, lived experience becomes an important source of evidence about how a system functions in practice.
At NeuroThrive Australia, we believe people with lived experience should have a meaningful role in designing and reforming the systems intended to support them.
A fair system is not simply one that offers everyone the same doorway. It is one that pays attention to who can actually get through it.
