As the COVID-19 pandemic began to unfold in early 2020, there were claims by some that the virus was a great 'equaliser'. Despite such assumptions, evidence from around the world and Australia consistently demonstrated that the pandemic spread fastest across pre-existing socioeconomic 'fault lines', with the impacts often concentrated among disadvantaged groups. In Australia, some refugee and migrant groups were among those disproportionately affected, with inequalities in morbidity and mortality, and with respect to the policies imposed to control the virus. This research argues that Australia's pandemic response was unjust in two ways. Firstly, it failed to take account of pre-existing disadvantages experienced by many refugees and migrants. Second, it further exacerbated inequalities. This research explores some of the possible explanatory factors that underpin the Australian federal government's response, including a set of contestable assumptions about individual responsibility for health, and about the exclusion of different groups in the context of border control, health security, and immigration policy. Drawing on Jonathan Wolff and Avner de-Shalit's theory of Disadvantage, this research ultimately argues that the Australian government failed in its obligations to protect refugee and migrant groups from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. It does so through an exploration of key questions about the obligations of government toward refugees and migrants within its territorial borders, and the moral importance of health.
The question of 'who counts?' in pandemic response
Preview