NDIA Accountability Project

Increased risk of sexual violence and barriers to justice for people with disability in institutional settings

‹ PrevPage 1 of 19 · Source p. 1Next ›

Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992

Laurel House Submission

October 2025

Laurel House

SEXUAL ASSAULT SUPPORT

COUNSELLING • EDUCATION • ADVOCACY • CHANGE

Acknowledgement of Country

Laurel House acknowledges and pay respect to the Palawa, who are the Traditional Custodians of the land and waters of Lutruwita. We pay respects to Elders past and present. We particularly acknowledge the resistance and resilience of those Aboriginal people who have experienced sexual violence.

Acknowledgement to Victim-Survivors

Laurel House also honour and acknowledge the victim-survivors of child sexual abuse and other forms of sexual violence. We recognise the immense strength it takes to confront and heal from these traumatic experiences. We commit to amplifying your voices, advocating for change, and standing side by side on the path to healing and recovery.

Disclaimer:

The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of Laurel House Tasmania and not necessarily those of our funding bodies. All possible care has been taken in the preparation of the information contained in this document. Laurel House disclaims any liability for the accuracy and sufficiency of the information and under no circumstances shall be liable in negligence or otherwise in or arising out of the preparation or supply of any of the information aforesaid. This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced without written permission from Laurel House Tasmania. © 2024 Laurel House Tasmania

This document was written by redacted (Policy, Advocacy, and Lived Experience Lead) and redacted (Policy Officer) with input from Laurel House staff.

About Laurel House

Laurel House is a not-for-profit, community-based sexual assault support service based in North and North-West Tasmania. Laurel House provides a range of trauma-informed, evidence based, therapeutic services to victim-survivors of sexual assault and child sexual abuse, their families and supporters. We also develop and deliver a broad range of programs to adults, young people and children including the provision of therapeutic face-to-face counselling at our centres located at Launceston, Devonport and Burnie and through outreach locations across the North and North-West Tasmania, and 24/7 telephone support and assistance with accessing police and forensic medical processes.

Laurel House partners with the Tasmanian Government in the delivery of the Arch Centres (multidisciplinary centres for victim-survivors of sexual harm). We also deliver services to children and young people (aged 17 years and under) who have displayed harmful sexual behaviours in North and North-West Tasmania.

Our team provides community education and other capacity building programs focused on the prevention of sexual harm and on supporting parents, carers and service providers to better respond to disclosures of sexual violence.

Laurel House plays a key role in policy and advocacy work to improve the lives and safety of victim-survivors and the Tasmanian community. This includes our Lived Experience Engagement Program which provides victim-survivors from diverse backgrounds with opportunities to advocate and drive change.

Contact:

Kathryn Fordyce

Chief Executive Officer

Ph: redacted

Email: redacted

Web: redacted

A note on language

We acknowledge differences in preference between person-first language (e.g. “person with disability”) and identity-first language (e.g. “disabled person”). At Laurel House and in this document, we use this language interchangeably and respectfully, recognising both approaches as valid. We are ultimately guided by how people and communities describe themselves. The language in this document does not reject any alternative terms.

Introduction

Laurel House welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) Review. As a specialist sexual violence service in northern Lutruwita/Tasmania, Laurel House works closely with clients who have experienced sexual harm, including those with a wide range of disabilities. Rather than responding to individual questions in the discussion paper, this submission provides an overview of our experience working with victim-survivors. We aim to highlight how disability increases the risk of someone experiencing sexual harm, and the likelihood that disability will occur as a direct result of sexual harm. In addition, we draw on our experience and interaction with clients to show how other identities and attributes intersect in ways that create additional barriers to justice and increase systemic abuse for people who have experienced sexual violence and abuse. This is especially the case for children in institutional settings.

People with disability – whether physical, sensory, intellectual, or psychosocial – often face power imbalances, dependency on carers, and societal biases like ableism. We advocate for a stronger focus on intersectionality, accessible justice pathways, and trauma-informed, disability-inclusive practices within the DDA. The DDA must be able to purposefully address the diverse lived experiences of disabled people, and be meaningfully accessible, to be effective.

Address Systemic and Intersectional Discrimination

Intersectionality refers to the way in which different aspects of a person’s identity – including but not limited to sex and gender, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, disability, age, and cultural background as well as aspects of their lived experiences which are likely to attract stigma or discrimination including but not limited to drug and alcohol use, homelessness, sex work, socioeconomic status, migration, and class – interact to shape their experiences of power, privilege, and marginalisation. In the context of discrimination, an intersectional approach recognises that individuals face heightened and unique risks of harm due to either individual or overlapping forms of marginalisation. This is particularly consequential in areas of activity covered by the DDA – employment, education, access to premises, accommodation, and the provision of goods and services – where inherent power imbalances may exist between the individual and organisations or service providers. People from marginalised groups may be less

likely to report discrimination, less likely to be believed when they do, or may not recognise inappropriate behaviour due to cultural, social, linguistic, or structural barriers as is the case in numerous other related and documented spaces such as sexual violence. disabled people are statistically more likely to belong to other marginalised groups and experience harm at a higher rate than non-disabled people, as expanded on below.

The attributes protected under Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws – including in the Race Discrimination Act 1975, Sex Discrimination Act 1984, Disability Discrimination Act 1992, and Age Discrimination Act 2004 – often intersect in ways that compound the risk of sexual violence and create additional barriers to victim-survivors accessing justice. Structural discrimination, social isolation, and reduced access to safe, accessible services increase vulnerability within these communities. When these attributes overlap, the effects of discrimination are not merely additive – they are compounded, creating layers of marginalisation that must be acknowledged in both legal protections and service responses. For example, LGBTQA+ youth with disability are at heightened risk of discrimination and abuse, with 29.7% of participants in the ‘Rainbow Realities Report’ disclosing they had experienced sexual assault or harassment within the previous 12 months.1

Case Study

A non-binary patient from a CALD background seeks therapy for anxiety related to workplace discrimination based on their disability. The practitioner, unaware of cultural nuances around gender identity, makes repeated “joking” comments about the patient’s presentation that blur professional boundaries, escalating to unwanted personal questions about their relationships. The patient, fearing deportation risks due to their migrant status, delays reporting, exacerbating their mental health decline.

This case study demonstrates how people with disability who hold multiple marginalised identities can experience compounding discrimination across different domains of life. The individual initially sought therapy to address anxiety stemming from workplace discrimination but was then subjected to further discriminatory and inappropriate conduct within the mental health system. This reflects a broader systemic issue, where services intended to provide support may instead perpetuate harm.

1 Amos, N., Lim, G., Buckingham, P., Lin, A., Liddelow-Hunt, S., Mooney-Somers, J., & Bourne, A. (2023). Rainbow Realities: In-depth analyses of large-scale LGBTQA+ health and wellbeing data in Australia (Report commissioned by the Department of Health and Aged Care, Australia). La Trobe University. ISBN 978-0-6458786-0-8.

NB: The ‘I’ has been left out of this acronym in this case as this study did not include intersex people.

While we acknowledge that the Australian Human Rights Commission’s (AHRC) conciliation process allows for multiple forms of discrimination to be addressed together initially, this is not necessarily the case when matters proceed to court. It is often impossible for people with intersecting identities to separate out the reason for discrimination or victimisation into neat categories, as the structure of the anti-discrimination legislation requires them to do. Protections in legislation do not reflect the lived realities of marginalisation experienced by people who face more than one form of discrimination at a time. We understand that this review only relates to the DDA, however, an intersectional approach to all anti-discrimination legislation is essential in addressing these heightened risks for those most at risk of harm.

Gaps in the DDA

  • Intersectionality is not substantively addressed in the DDA’s definitions or operation and does not explicitly recognise that disabled people are more likely to experience compounded discrimination when multiple marginalised identities intersect.
  • Current legislation and complaint processes require separating discrimination into discrete categories (e.g., the DDA vs the Sex Discrimination Act), which does not reflect lived experiences of intersectional harm.
  • There are no positive obligations or duties on organisations to identify and address systemic intersectional discrimination, leaving disabled people with multiple vulnerabilities at greater risk of harm.
  • Lack of recognition of social, cultural, and structural barriers that reduce the likelihood of reporting or accessing justice for disabled people with intersecting marginalised identities.

Recommendations

  1. Amend the DDA to define intersectionality and explicitly recognise it in the Objects of the Act – and any interpretive guidance - similar to the Disability Rights, Inclusion and Safeguarding Act 2024 (Tas).
  2. Require the DDA to ensure organisations take proactive measures to identify and reduce systemic and structural barriers for people with intersecting marginalised identities.
  3. Amend the DDA to clarify that complaints under the Act do not require separation of discrimination types – including multiple disabilities – allowing courts to consider the full context of compounded disadvantage.

Disproportionate Risk of Sexual Violence for People with Disability

Disabled people are disproportionately impacted by sexual violence, with national data showing significantly higher rates of harm compared to the general

population. The ‘Nature and extent of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation against people with disability Australia’ report found:2

  • people with disability are at 2.2 times the risk of sexual violence in comparison to people without disability;
  • young women with disability (18-29 years) are twice as likely to report experiencing sexual violence over their lifetime than young women without disability; and
  • men with disability are 2.6 times as likely to report sexual violence compared to men without disability.

These figures reflect systemic failures in protection, prevention, and accountability and highlight the urgent need for the DDA to provide stronger, more responsive safeguards that recognise the specific risks and lived experiences of disabled people.

Case Study

A teenager with a sensory disability (low vision) is referred to a neurologist with symptoms including severe focal seizures. He has a history of abuse-related trauma. The specialist, dismissing his physical complaints as psychosomatic due to his trauma history, attributes his symptoms to “stress” without ordering diagnostic tests for rare conditions like Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, which later proves to be the cause. During consultations, the practitioner uses condescending language, questions his credibility, and suggests his symptoms are “all in his mind.” When family persists in seeking answers, the specialist escalates, threatening to refer him for involuntary psychiatric admission under the guise of “protecting his safety.”

This case study illustrates how a trauma history, disability, and institutional power can intersect in ways to reduce a person’s agency in accessing medical services. Both the patient, and his family/advocates are treated less favourably because of his disability, and are further victimised when they attempt to speak up on his behalf. It is a clear example of how diagnostic overshadowing – where a person’s disability or trauma is wrongly seen as the cause of all their health issues – can constitute direct or indirect discrimination. The DDA does not adequately account for medical negligence or clinical bias within a discrimination context.

In the Tasmanian context, the ‘Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings 2023’ (COI) final report notes that disability in and of itself does not inherently make a

2 Disability Royal Commission. (2021, March 16). People with disability face much greater risk of violence than people without disability [Press release]. Retrieved August 14, 2025, from https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/news-and-media/media-releases/people-disability-face-much-greater-risk-violence-people-without-disability

child more vulnerable to sexual abuse (which we believe is the case for all attributes that increase risk of sexual harm). However, it puts children at an increased risk because they are more likely to have contact with institutions within which abusers have opportunities to abuse them. Those children are also likely to have more challenges that affect their likelihood of reporting sexual abuse due to compounding intersectional factors as outlined above.

The COI also found that more than 20% of children in out-of-home care in Tasmania have a known disability.3 Children who live with disability can be especially vulnerable in the context of out-of-home care, youth detention, or in circumstances where they may have less control over their daily lives and more difficulties in having their needs heard and met.

The “Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability 2023” (the Royal Commission) found that people with disability not only experience violence more frequently than non-disabled people, but that the risk increases when disability intersects with other marginalised identities, including:4

  • women and girls– more than twice as likely to have experienced sexual abuse before the age of 15
  • women with psychological or intellectual disability – 45% of women with psychological or intellectual disability have experienced violence since the age of 15, compared with 54% of women with disability of any type
  • young people – more than twice as likely as people without disability to experience physical or sexual violence before the age of 15
  • First Nations people – more likely to have experienced physical harm or threats in the past 12 months than Firsts Nations people who are non-disabled (22% compared with 12%)
  • LGBTIQA+ people – higher levels of violence and abuse by family members than non-disabled LGBTIQA+ people

3 Tasmania. Commission of Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings. (2023). The Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s responses to child sexual abuse in institutional settings: Full report. Retrieved from https://www.commissionofinquiry.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0011/724439/COI_Full-Report.pdf 4 Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final report – Executive summary, Our vision for an inclusive Australia and recommendations. Commonwealth of Australia. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/2023-11/Final%20report%20-%20Executive%20Summary%2C%20Our%20vision%20for%20an%20inclusive%20Australia%20and%20Recommendations.pdf

The Royal Commission also found an increased risk of sexual exploitation for people with cognitive disabilities in prison.5

Gaps in the DDA

  • The Act does not explicitly account for the fact that children and adults with disability are disproportionately at risk of sexual harm, particularly in institutional settings.
  • The DDA does not explicitly acknowledge that failure to protect people with disability from sexual violence, or failure to provide equal protection and justice responses, is a form of discrimination.
  • The DDA does not provide specific or increased protections for children with disability in out-of-home care, detention, or other settings where their rights and voices are suppressed.
  • The Act does not impose positive duties on institutions to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual violence against disabled people, despite clear evidence of heightened risk.

Recommendations 4. Amend the DDA to explicitly recognise sexual violence as discrimination when people with disability are denied equal safety, protection, and access to justice. 5. Introduce positive duties for entities and organisations, specifically in institutional settings (schools, out-of-home care, youth detention, disability services), and in circumstances where services are provided to people in their home, to take proactive steps to prevent sexual violence against disabled people. 6. Amend the DDA to recognise institutional exposure as a risk factor for sexual violence and require minimum standards for safeguards against sexual violence in these settings.

Recognise Disability Resulting from Sexual Harm

In addition to the increased risk of sexual harm for people with disability, sexual harm can lead to a victim-survivor developing a disability. The Australian Child Maltreatment Study (ACMS) examined child abuse across Australia and found that 28.5% of respondents had experienced child sexual abuse (CSA). The study also found that adults who experienced maltreatment as a child, including CSA, were 2.8 times more likely to have a mental health disorder than adults who had

5 Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final Report: Volume 8, Criminal justice and people with disability. Commonwealth of Australia. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/2023-09/Final%20Report%20-%20Volume%208%2C%20Criminal%20justice%20and%20people%20with%20disability.pdf

not experienced maltreatment.6 This includes conditions like major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, alcohol use disorder, and (complex) post-traumatic stress disorder – impacts which result in adult victim-survivors also.7 Studies also show that sexual violence can lead to chronic illness and physical disabilities such as acquired brain injuries, chronic pain conditions, sexual and reproductive conditions, and a wide range of secondary physical disabilities resulting from these longer term.8 9 10 In addition to these disabilities, boys who have experienced CSA face barriers in healing and recovery related persistent gender roles and norms in relation to masculinity, assumptions about victim-survivors, and cultural stigmas about abuse.11

While data is often reported within a binary framework of male and female, we acknowledge that gender is not binary. Trans and non-binary people face significantly increased risk of sexual violence across their lifespan, as well as lived experience of disability and chronic illness.12 These intersecting identities create multiple barriers for victim-survivors, as detailed above.

6 Haslam, D., Mathews, B., Pacella, R., Scott, J. G., Finkelhor, D., Higgins, D. J., Meinck, F., Erskine, H. E., Thomas, H. J., Lawrence, D., & Malacova, E. (2023). The prevalence and impact of child maltreatment in Australia: Findings from the Australian Child Maltreatment Study: Brief Report (ACMS). Queensland University of Technology. https://www.acms.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/3846.1_ACMS_A4Report_V2.1_Digital_20230627-1.pdf ACMS+1 7 Townsend, N., Loxton, D., Egan, N., Barnes, I., Byrnes, E., & Forder, P. (2022). A life course approach to determining the prevalence and impact of sexual violence in Australia: Findings from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health (Research report 14/2022). ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/a-life-course-approach-to-determining-the-prevalence-and-impact-of-sexual-violence-in-australia-findings-from-the-australian-longitudinal-study-on-womens-health/ 8 BMJ Mental Health. (2024). Intimate partner violence, traumatic brain injury and long-term brain health. BMJ Mental Health, 27(1), e3026. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjment-2023-3026 9 Hathaway, J., Mucci, L., Silverman, J., Brooks, D., Mathews, R., & Pavlos, C. (2000). Health status and health care use of Massachusetts women reporting partner abuse. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19(4), 302–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00236-1 10 Smith, R. P., & Pukall, C. F. (2011). Sexual pain disorders in women: Etiology and treatment. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02052.x 11 National Centre for Childhood Sexual Abuse & Exploitation Prevention. (2025, May). Supporting boys and men to disclose child sexual abuse (Resource V4). National Centre for Childhood Sexual Abuse & Exploitation Prevention. https://nationalcentre.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/NAT00044_Boys-and-Men-Resource_V4.pdf 12 Salter, M., Breckenridge, J., Lee-Ah Mat, V., Kaladelfos, A., Suchting, M., Breckenridge, V., Dubler, N., & Griffin, A. (2024). *National survey of LGBTIQA+SB experiences of sexual

It is important to note that even if physical injuries are temporary, the DDA defines disability in broad enough terms to include disabilities that presently exist, previously existed, may exist in the future, or are imputed to a person. People who acquire a disability as a direct result of sexual harm may face discrimination in numerous contexts, including:

  • Employment: failure to make reasonable adjustments, dismissal, treatment that is less favourable.
  • Education: refusals to grant special considerations or extensions, failure to provide trauma-informed supports.
  • Accessing Services: refusal to provide medical or therapeutic care, being turned away from services for behaviours connected to disability.
  • Retaliation or Victimisation: disability can be exacerbated by further mistreatment.
  • Housing: inaccessibility, refusal to allow modification (including increased security).

For victim-survivors of sexual harm, there may be additional barriers to initiating a complaint under the DDA, including involvement in other legal proceedings. This could include as a complainant/witness in the criminal justice system, a claimant/applicant in civil proceedings, a witness in an inquiry (e.g. the COI), and/or an applicant under a Victims of Crime Compensation Scheme. Initiating a complaint in yet another jurisdiction – the Australian Human Rights Commission – may (with good reason) be beyond the psychological, emotional, physical and financial resources of a victim-survivor.

Engagement with the justice system is often described by Laurel House counsellors as re-traumatising for victim-survivors, lengthy, and complex. This is exacerbated when the Respondent is an organisation, institution, department, or agency that has access to significantly more resources than the individual. Requiring a victim-survivor to participate in yet another legal proceeding if they experience discrimination places them at further disadvantage and open to traumatisation.

Gaps in the DDA

  • The DDA is currently reactive to discrimination, not proactive in preventing it.
  • The DDA does not explicitly recognise disability acquired through violence and abuse as a context requiring targeted protections.
  • Survivors who acquire a disability may fall through cracks because trauma-related disabilities are frequently stigmatised, undiagnosed, or mischaracterised.

violence – Summary report*. Gendered Violence Research Network, UNSW Sydney. Retrieved from https://www.unsw.edu.au/content/dam/pdfs/ada/gvrn/research-reports/2025-03-national-survey-lgbtiqa-sb-experiences-of-sexual-violence-summary-report.pdf

  • No clear obligation exists for trauma-informed practice in services, education, or workplaces where discrimination may occur.

Recommendations 7. Amend the DDA to clarify that disabilities acquired through violence, abuse, or trauma – including sexual violence – are explicitly defined and protected, ensuring consistent access to rights and remedies. 8. Implement a positive duty for public and private sector entities to: a) make reasonable adjustments for people with disability; b) proactively and continuously assess compliance with their obligations; c) ensure people with disability are not being subjected to discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation; and d) allow the AHRC to take independent action against the entity if they are not taking appropriate steps to address discrimination. 9. Implement guidance clarifying what is expected of entities to meet the threshold for “reasonable adjustments,” which includes information on intersectionality, marginalisation, and the impacts of abuse and sexual harm.

Improve Institutional Accountability

Disability can intersect with other attributes to increase both vulnerability to harm and barriers to justice. In institutional settings, these intersections are often sites of profound risk. The COI described youth detention and some out of home care environments as closed institutions. The report states:13

“Because closed institutions are not common environments, they can become ‘alternative moral universes’… Such environments can enliven a culture of humiliating and degrading children, including through child sexual abuse.”

The Royal Commission also referred to ‘segregated settings,’ for people with disability, stating:

“There is a long history, both in Australia and in other countries around the world, of excluding people with disability from mainstream environments and placing them in segregated settings. In many of these institutions,

13 Commission of Inquiry. (n.d.). COI full report. Tasmania, Australia: Commission of Inquiry. Retrieved from https://www.commissionofinquiry.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0011/724439/COI_Full-Report.pdf

people with disability lived as ‘captives of care’, with little choice or control over their life or interaction with the outside world.”14

We are deeply concerned about the occurrence of sexual violence, including CSA, in environments where disabled people may be placed or detained, such as youth detention and out of home care, hospitals and health care settings, group homes, Supported Independent Living (SIL) arrangements, special education providers, supported employment specialist disability accommodation, and aged care facilities. These environments can foster dynamics of power and control that disproportionately affect disabled people, especially where autonomy is limited or where individuals are reliant on others for care. This may also apply to some in-home support settings. The impact of sexual violence in these contexts is often compounded by multiple systemic barriers to seeking help or redress, including:

  • Communication differences that are not adequately supported or understood.
  • Dependence on an abuser or on the institution, making disclosure unsafe or impossible.
  • A lack of accessible and inclusive support services, particularly in rural and regional areas.
  • Police and legal systems that lack the training and capacity to effectively meet the needs of disabled victim-survivors .

Given the increased risk of sexual harm in institutional environments, and the increased barriers to reporting, there are serious questions about whether the DDA can provide accessible pathways to justice in these circumstances. This is concerning, as an increased risk of sexual harm is evidence of systemic failures, including direct and indirect forms of discrimination and victimisation.

Gaps in the DDA

  • The DDA has insufficient safeguards in institutional contexts for children and adults with disability where they face higher risks of sexual violence and are at higher risk of abuse and maltreatment.
  • The DDA does not address systemic barriers that prevent children and adults with disability from reporting sexual violence, such as communication needs or fear of retaliation.

14 Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final report – Executive Summary: Our vision for an inclusive Australia and Recommendations. Commonwealth of Australia. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/2023-11/Final%20report%20-%20Executive%20Summary%2C%20Our%20vision%20for%20an%20inclusive%20Australia%20and%20Recommendations.pdf

  • There are insufficient mechanisms in the DDA to hold institutions accountable for systemic failures that enable discrimination and abuse, even when multiple children or adults are affected.

Recommendations 10. Amend the DDA to require specific institutions that provide care, housing, employment, detention, or education to children and adults with disability (beyond those defined as accommodation providers) to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, as well as sexual violence and exploitation of children and adults with disability. 11. Embed specific protections for children with disability and recognise them as a priority group under the DDA, with explicit additional protections in high-risk institutional contexts. 12. Expand the AHRC’s powers under the DDA to investigate systemic or institutional discrimination and failures to protect people with disability from harm, not just individual complaints.

Remove Barriers to Justice

While the DDA may not be the most used complaint mechanism for people who have experienced sexual harm it is vital that victim-survivors are able to access and use it if they so choose. This is especially the case when attempting to hold a system, service provider, or employer accountable for the harm they have caused.

Many disabled people face barriers like inaccessible complaint forms (e.g., non-Braille, complex language, inaccessible digital formats etc.) or rely on intermediaries to complete documents and paperwork on their behalf. The ability to commence a complaint needs to be provided in multiple formats, including Easy Read, Auslan-interpreted videos, and advocate-supported reporting. Accessibility isn’t only important for commencing complaints, but for the duration of the complaint process, up to and including Court proceedings.

Legislative reform will be insufficient in removing barriers to justice for disabled people if it is not coupled with training, education, and appropriate resourcing throughout the legal process. This includes staff at the AHRC, legal and other support services – including community legal centres – and Court staff. Training needs to be co-designed with people who have lived experience of disability and navigating the justice system in this context. In seeking lived experience input it is important not to overgeneralise; disability is not a monolith, and treating it as such could erase diverse needs.

Gaps in the DDA

  • Complaint mechanisms under the DDA are often inaccessible (e.g., forms not in Easy Read, Auslan, Braille, or digital-accessible formats).
  • People with disability frequently rely on intermediaries or advocates, but the DDA does not explicitly support or protect advocate-assisted reporting.
  • The DDA does not address the need for accessible processes throughout the entire complaint journey, including investigations, conciliation, and court proceedings.
  • Lack of training and resourcing for AHRC staff, legal services, and courts means people with disability face barriers in practice, even if legislative protections exist.

Recommendations 10. Strengthen the DDA’s complaints process by providing resourcing for advocacy, disability legal services, and systemic investigations so that survivors don’t carry the burden or cost alone. 11. Mandate accessible reporting and redress mechanisms and require institutions to provide accessible, safe, and supported pathways for children and adults with disability to disclose sexual harm (e.g. communication supports, independent advocates, protections against reprisal) and other forms of maltreatment as a form of discrimination under the Act. 12. Require monitoring and reporting on accessibility and outcomes of complaints, to identify and address systemic gaps. 13. Explicitly recognise and accommodate diverse disability needs, ensuring processes are tailored rather than one-size-fits-all.

Embed Trauma-Informed, Survivor-Centered Principles in the DDA Framework

Trauma-informed and survivor-centred principles should be embedded across the revised DDA framework, specifically within the objects of the Act, any interpretive guidance, and its implementation mechanisms. The DDA must go beyond traditional legal protections. Embedding trauma-informed, survivor-centred principles in the Objects of the Act would reflect a clear commitment to the safety, dignity, and agency of disabled people – especially those affected by violence. Interpretive guidance must explicitly recognise the impact of trauma on how discrimination is experienced, disclosed, and navigated, including the intersecting barriers faced by disabled people from diverse backgrounds and other marginalised identities.

Effective implementation must be co-designed with people with disability who are also victim-survivors of sexual violence. Their lived expertise is essential to developing protections that are not only legally sound, but also practically safe and accessible. Embedding trauma-informed, survivor-centred principles throughout the DDA framework is therefore essential to ensuring that the Act delivers on its promise of equality, justice, and non-discrimination.

Gaps in the DDA

  • The DDA does not explicitly embed trauma-informed or survivor-centred principles in its objects, guidance, or implementation.
  • The DDA lacks guidance on recognising how trauma affects the experience and reporting of discrimination, including intersecting barriers for marginalised individuals and communities.

Recommendations 14. Extend any positive duty to include an obligation on entities to provide reasonable adjustments that are trauma-informed recognising the fluctuating and complex needs of victim-survivors with disability. 15. Embed trauma-informed, survivor-centred principles in the Objects of the Act, any interpretive guidance, and implementation mechanisms. 16. Adopt genuine co-design with people with disability who are victim-survivors in developing protections, standards, guidance and procedures.

Unjustifiable Hardship

The concept of unjustifiable hardship under the DDA serves as a legal limitation on the obligation for entities to make adjustments or modifications for people with disability. While the DDA requires organisations and individuals to avoid discrimination and take reasonable steps to provide equal access, these obligations are not absolute. Where fulfilling these requirements would impose an unjustifiable hardship – considering factors such as the cost of the adjustment, the benefit to the person with disability, the organisation’s financial circumstances, and the availability of alternative options – an exemption may apply.

Currently, the DDA does not impose any obligation on entities to consult with people with disability before determining that a requested adjustment would impose unjustifiable hardship. For victim-survivors of sexual violence, many of whom may acquire disability because of trauma, this lack of consultation denies them a voice in decisions that directly affect their recovery, access, and participation.

Victim survivors may require short, medium, or long-term adjustments in workplaces, education settings, or when accessing services. Without a legal right to be consulted, they are excluded from contributing to potential alternatives or solutions, reinforcing disempowerment and compounding the harm already experienced. This not only undermines the principles of dignity and autonomy but also perpetuates the marginalisation the DDA is intended to prevent. This directly contradicts principles of trauma-informed practice, including empowerment and choice, transparency, and collaboration.

Gaps in the DDA

  • As the DDA is complaints based, the only solution for a victim-survivor to challenge a decision about unjustifiable hardship is to initiate a complaint.
  • A victim-survivor making a request for reasonable adjustments currently has no legal right to input into that decision before it is made.
  • The test is supposed to provide for a balance between individual rights and organisational capacity but often reflects power dynamics that mimic the

loss of control that is a consequence of sexual violence thus risking retraumatised for victim-survivors with disabilities.

Recommendations 17. Amend the DDA to embed a legal right for a person with disability to be genuinely consulted about their request for reasonable adjustments before a decision is made to reject it on the grounds of unjustifiable hardship. 18. Amend the DDA to require organisations to actively explore and consider all available alternatives to eliminate or reduce hardship, in meaningful consultation with the person with disability. 19. Specifically require organisations to consider the impact of trauma on victim-survivors of sexual harm, and to implement reasonable adjustments in accordance with trauma-informed principles.

Conclusion

Laurel House encourages the DDA Review to take meaningful action to ensure the Act reflects the lived realities of disabled people, particularly those who are also victim-survivors of sexual violence. The DDA must be strengthened to address the disproportionate risk of sexual harm faced by people with disability, the unique vulnerabilities in institutional settings, and the long-term physical, psychological, and social impacts of such harm, including the development of disability as a result of sexual violence. To be effective, the DDA must be trauma informed, survivor centred, and intersectional in both design and implementation, with clear protections that are accessible, enforceable, and co-designed with people who have lived experience. Without these reforms, the Act cannot meaningfully uphold the rights, safety, and dignity of those it is intended to protect.

Laurel House

SEXUAL ASSAULT SUPPORT