NDIA Accountability Project

Enabling the success of university students and staff with disability through inter-Departmental law reforms

‹ PrevPage 1 of 16 · Source p. 1Next ›

Enabling the success of university students and staff with disability through inter-Departmental law reforms

Submission to the Disability Discrimination Act Review

Ebe Ganon, October 2025

Contents

  • Introduction (3)

  • Key recommendations (4)

    Section 1: Monitoring and compliance in higher education (4)

    • Recommendation 1: Work in partnership with the Department of Education to embed disability inclusion as core TEQSA regulatory business (4)

    Section 2: The positive duty framework (7)

    • Recommendation 2: Support the implementation of positive duty in higher education (7)

    Section 3: Removing the “reasonable” qualifier (9)

    • Recommendation 3: Remove “reasonable” qualifier and strengthen consultation requirements (9)

    Section 4: Reframing inherent requirements (11)

    • Recommendation 4: Extend inherent requirements reform to higher education (11)

    Section 5: Transforming disability action plans (13)

    • Recommendation 5: Transform Disability Action Plans into genuine accountability tools (13)

    Section 6: Beyond student experience - staff with disability (15)

    • Recommendation 6: Ensure DDA reforms address both student and employment contexts (15)

  • Conclusion (16)

Introduction

Thank you for the opportunity to submit to this consultation. I write as a university student and staff member with disability, as well as a community engagement practitioner, researcher, and advocate with extensive experience across government, university, and community sectors. I am a PhD student at UNSW Canberra focused on disability employment and job satisfaction research, and a research associate at the University of Tasmania supporting research into systemic and cultural changes required to enable the success of students with disability at university. As such, I bring both lived experience and professional expertise to anti-discrimination law reform and the realisation of the rights of people with disability. I have engaged with members of my community through policy translation activities such as a podcast episode and a blog post on the DDA review, both of which generated significant discussion and interest – these conversations have informed my perspectives in this submission.

In this submission to the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD), I outline how Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) reforms in the following areas are required to ensure that university staff and students with disability experience equitable, fair, inclusive, and accessibility education and employment:

  • Section 1: Monitoring and compliance in higher education
  • Section 2: The positive duty framework
  • Section 3: Removing the “reasonable” qualifier
  • Section 4: Reframing inherent requirements
  • Section 5: Transforming disability action plans
  • Section 6: Beyond student experience - staff with disability

In each section, I outline my understanding of the current state of the law, its implications on the experiences of people with disability, and offer a perspective on the efficacy of the proposed reforms to address these challenges. In most cases, I strongly support the proposed reforms – in others, I provide options for strengthening the reforms to ensure that the desire outcomes are realised.

Most crucially, I make the case for the importance of the AGD working in partnership with other review and reform processes to ensure genuine system change. This includes the current review of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act), and the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (DSE). The success of DDA reforms, with the goal of meeting Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (UNCRPD) and Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021 – 2031 (ADS), will hinge entirely on this collaboration.

Key recommendations

Section 1: Monitoring and compliance in higher education

There is currently no regulatory body which undertakes regular monitoring and compliance action on universities in relation to their duties under the DDA. This is a significant gap, which results in disability discrimination only being addressed reactively through complaints mechanisms such as through the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) or the recently established National Student Ombudsman (NSO), rather than proactively through quality regulatory oversight and monitoring. Institutions don’t currently have a duty to prevent discrimination from happening in the first place (I will return to the issue of Positive Duty in a later section).

This is unlike the situation for most duty holders under the DDA: workplaces and employer duties are regulated and monitored by the Fair Work Ombudsman, state- based work health and safety agencies, and other agencies such as the Workplace Gender Equality Agency which ensure that obligations under the Sex Discrimination Act are being met. School compliance is monitored and regulated under a range of school- and network-boards, curriculum agencies, and the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data (NCCD). Whether these mechanisms are entirely effective is out of scope, but they stand in opposition to the situation for universities – nobody is monitoring their compliance with their duties.

Currently, the proposed reforms do not attempt to address this significant issue and systemic barrier to proper DDA effectiveness.

Recommendation 1: Work in partnership with the Department of Education to embed disability inclusion as core TEQSA regulatory business

The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) is well-positioned to address this gap through its existing regulatory framework for quality and standards in higher education. However, current TEQSA processes do not adequately incorporate disability inclusion as a core quality indicator, nor is there an explicit authorisation for TEQSA to undertake monitoring or regulatory actions in this area.

The TEQSA Act is currently under review, and this presents an opportunity for the AGD to work in partnership with the Department of Education to see this Act reformed to include a specific duty to oversee compliance with the Disability Standards for Education (DSE) 2005. The Higher Education Standards Framework (section 58) and TEQSA’s supporting regulatory settings should be updated to include specific disability inclusion requirements, with TEQSA monitoring DSE compliance, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) implementation, and disability governance as part of standard

Recommendations to Review

 A requirement for institutions to report on progress towards disability inclusion and accessibility as part of institutional accreditation and reaccreditation processes (sections 20, 36, 48, 56). This could include:

- Progress updates on university Disability Action Plans

- Analysis of movement in Student Experience Survey (SES) data reflecting the experiences of students with disability

 A requirement for institutions to report on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) implementation across course design for new courses as well as courses being reaccredited. This could include:

- UDL statements for all courses being accredited and reaccredited, explaining how barriers are proactively removed and reduced in course design by default

 Spot-audits of digital and physical learning environments for DSE compliance for institutions accredited by TEQSA

 Requirements for institutions to evidence staff capability in inclusive teaching practices and course design

Poor performance or non-progress across these areas should attract non-compliance penalties under Part 7 Division 1 (Administrative sanctions), such as reductions in funding and accreditation suspension at the programme or institutional level.

In conjunction with reformed Disability Action Plan requirements (discussed in Section 5), TEQSA should be empowered to:

- Monitor implementation of university Disability Action Plans as part of regular compliance processes

- Require evidence of measurable progress within defined timeframes

- Apply penalties for institutions that fail to meet DAP commitments or allow plans to expire without renewal

- Publish comparative data on institutional performance against disability inclusion metrics

Page 6 of 16

This would transform action plans from aspirational documents gathering dust to genuine accountability tools, with real consequences for institutions that treat them as ‘insurance policies’ for inaction.

Establishing clear regulatory oversight through TEQSA would:

  • Create consistent standards across the sector rather than variable institutional interpretations
  • Provide institutions with clear guidance on compliance expectations
  • Shift the burden from individual students having to pursue complaints to systemic quality assurance
  • Enable early intervention before discrimination occurs rather than reactive response after harm is done
  • Create transparency through comparative data that drives institutional improvement
  • Align disability inclusion with other core quality indicators already monitored by TEQSA

Universities already have these responsibilities under the DDA and DSE. Embedding these obligations into TEQSA’s regulatory framework simply ensures they are taken as seriously as other quality standards, with appropriate oversight and accountability mechanisms. Importantly, it closes the loopholes that university duty holders currently exploit in a dynamic that is unique to this category of duty holder.

Section 2: The positive duty framework

The DDA review proposes shifting from the current reactive model to a “positive duty” framework (Recommendations 4.27 and 4.28). Instead of waiting for complaints, universities would be proactively responsible for preventing discrimination and promoting rights-based environments.

This mirrors recent shifts in work health and safety and sex discrimination legislation, towards requiring duty holders to create psychologically-safe workplaces proactively and to prevent sex-based discrimination. These reforms have demonstrated that positive duty is a very powerful tool for driving genuine organisational change.

A positive duty would require universities to proactively identify and remove barriers in course design, assessment methods, and built environments. It would incentivize genue capacity building for staff and force institutions to consider the experiences of both students and staff with disability in their strategy and planning, rather than after an incident or complaint occurs.

Recommendation 2: Support the implementation of positive duty in higher

education

I strongly support Recommendations 4.27 and 4.28 regarding positive duty.

Guidance materials supporting implementation in higher education settings should specifically address:

  • Requirements for disability inclusion to be embedded in institutional strategic plans and governance frameworks
  • Mandatory training for all staff (academic and professional) on disability inclusion and their obligations under positive duty
  • Investment in specialist roles that support inclusive course design and UDL implementation (such as learning designers, accessibility coordinators, and inclusive practice specialists)
  • Regular auditing of courses, programmes, and systems to identify and address barriers before students encounter them
  • Genuine partnership with students and staff with disability in identifying and addressing barriers

Some university leaders may view positive duty as additional regulatory burden. However, the current system is incredibly inefficient. Institutions are already dealing with complaints, academic appeals, and student dissatisfaction. They’re losing

Page 8 of 16

Students who could succeed with appropriate support, which means less government funding. They’re facing potentially expensive legal action when things go wrong with huge reputational flow-ons.

A positive duty framework actually provides clarity and creates systems that benefit everyone. Proactive inclusion is more cost-effective than reactive crisis management. Students who feel supported are more likely to succeed, reducing attrition costs. Staff who understand their obligations are more confident and effective educators.

Universities already have these responsibilities under current law. Positive duty simply creates better framing with fewer loopholes and stronger incentives for proactivity.

Section 3: Removing the “reasonable” qualifier

Another significant proposed change is removing “reasonable” as a qualifier for adjustments (Recommendations 4.25 and 4.26). For universities, this is the main tool we use to create equitable learning opportunities that accommodate a student’s strengths and support needs.

Courts have already recognised that “reasonable adjustments” essentially means all adjustments up to the point of unjustifiable hardship – “reasonable” is somewhat superfluous as a concept here. However, universities have adopted this legislative slack to use “reasonableness” as an excuse to refuse adjustments without proper consultation.

This creates a system where students must prove why they need something rather than universities demonstrating why they can’t provide it. The burden of proof sits entirely with the student, often supported by under-resourced disability practitioners who are required to limit their thinking due to narrow interpretations of what’s “reasonable.”

Recommendation 3: Remove

Page 10 of 16

This situation becomes even more frustrating when we consider recent increases to the Higher Education Disability Support Program (DSF) funding. Universities now receive significantly more Commonwealth funding specifically to support students with disability, which should substantially reduce their ability to claim resource constraints as barriers to compliance or ability to plead unjustifiable hardship.

Yet many institutions continue to under-deliver on accessibility and lack the capacity to systematically dispense this funding. When universities receive dedicated funding for disability support but still claim unjustifiable hardship due to resource constraints, this represents a failure of institutional prioritisation rather than genuine resource limitations.

Section 4: Reframing inherent requirements

I commonly hear from students and staff about universities using “inherent requirements” as instruments to exclude students with disability from enrolling in and completing courses. These requirements are supposedly the essential skills needed for a course or the profession it leads to, but they’re often developed with minimal consultation and are subject to broad, inconsistent interpretation.

Students are excluded based on assumptions about their capabilities rather than assessments of how they might meet requirements with appropriate adjustments in place. If a student shows up to enrol in their medical degree and someone makes a snap judgement about their perceived limitations, universities become gatekeepers to entire professions. Not because students can’t do the work, but because of low expectations and inflexible thinking.

The DDA review proposes a crucial reframing in the context of employment: considering job or role-based inherent requirements in relation to how a person with disability would be able to meet them when reasonable adjustments are in place, rather than assessing the requirement in isolation (Recommendation 7.26).

If we ensure that this reform is also enacted in the context of education, this shift would force universities and professional bodies to think creatively about what actually matters for professional competence versus what we’ve always done out of tradition, and act to prevent exclusion of students with disability.

Recommendation 4: Extend inherent requirements reform to higher education

I strongly support Recommendation 7.26 regarding inherent requirements being considered with adjustments in mind. The review currently addresses student exclusion primarily in a school context (Recommendation 7.2), but improving how inherent requirements are considered in education, not just employment, is a crucial way to reduce exclusion for university students.

Many inherent requirements are driven not just by universities but by professional accreditation bodies. The DDA review, together with the DSE review, should specifically address how professional bodies contribute to exclusionary inherent requirements and ensure they are also subject to positive duty and reformed inherent requirements frameworks.

This reform should specifically address:

  • Requirements for universities to regularly review inherent requirements with disability practitioners and people with disability

Enabling the success of university students and staff with disability through inter-Departmental law reforms

  • Mandatory consideration of how requirements could be met with available technology and adjustments
  • Prohibition of blanket exclusions based on disability categories
  • Requirements to assess individual capacity rather than making assumptions based on diagnosis
  • Transparency in how inherent requirements are determined and applied

Instead of asking “Can this person take blood pressure in the standard way?” the question becomes “Can this person accurately assess a patient’s blood pressure using available technology and reasonable adjustments?” This approach opens up possibilities rather than shutting them down, and ensures that inherent requirements reflect genuine professional needs rather than arbitrary barriers.

Section 5: Transforming disability action plans

Currently, the AHRC allows organisations to lodge Disability Action Plans (DAPs) to account for gaps between their legal obligations under the DDA and what they’re currently capable of delivering. In theory, these plans should provide a roadmap for improvement. In practice, universities treat them as get-out-of-jail-free cards.

Universities are among the worst offenders when it comes to using DAPs as scapegoats for non-compliance. When I started my first job in higher education governance, I was literally told that our DAP was our “insurance policy” for all the accessibility work we weren’t going to do.

When I last audited university DAPs (in 2024), about half of institutions didn’t have one, and a significant number of published plans were expired or expiring in 2025. The ones that did exist painted pictures of institutions I didn’t recognise. They described lovely places to study and work if they were actually compliant, but bore no resemblance to the universities students and staff with disability actually experience.

The DDA review proposes crucial reforms to make DAPs actually work: stricter timelines for implementation, mandatory renewal requirements, and robust evaluation and reporting mechanisms (Part 6 – Modernising the Disability Discrimination Act). Most importantly, there would be genuine monitoring and compliance action against duty holders who fail to meet their commitments.

Recommendation 5: Transform Disability Action Plans into genuine accountability tools I support the proposed reforms to Disability Action Plans outlined in Part 6 of the review, but I don’t think they go far enough. For meaningful change, the DDA should require (framed in the higher education context, but applicable for all duty holders):

  • Mandatory DAPs for all universities registered with TEQSA
  • Maximum plan duration of 3 years with mandatory renewal processes
  • Requirements for measurable, time-bound actions with clear accountability
  • Mandatory consultation with students and staff with disability in DAP development and review
  • Public reporting on progress against DAP commitments through annual reports
  • Integration of DAP monitoring into TEQSA accreditation and compliance processes (as outlined in Section 1)
  • Penalties for institutions that allow plans to lapse or fail to demonstrate progress

Enabling the success of university students and staff with disability through inter- Departmental law reforms

Requirements to Publish Evidence of DAP Commitments

These changes would transform action plans from aspirational documents gathering dust to genuine accountability tools. Universities would no longer be able to write something that looks impressive and demonstrates awareness of compliance gaps without actually delivering change. They’d be required to show measurable progress within defined timeframes, with real consequences for failure to deliver.

Combined with positive duty requirements, reformed action plans would create a system where universities must both proactively prevent discrimination and demonstrate concrete progress towards full compliance. No more ‘insurance policies’ for inaction.

Section 6: Beyond student experience - staff with disability

This submission has focused primarily on the student experience because that’s where my professional expertise and research lie. However, we must recognise that universities also employ significant numbers of staff and researchers with disability who face similar barriers and discrimination in their workplaces.

Academic staff with disability often struggle with inaccessible conference venues, inflexible teaching arrangements, and assumptions about their capabilities. Professional staff face barriers in career progression, exclusion from key meetings due to accessibility issues, and workplace cultures that treat disability as a problem to be managed rather than diversity to be valued.

The positive duty framework would require universities to consider the full employee lifecycle for staff with disability - from recruitment and onboarding through to professional development and career advancement. Just as students shouldn’t have to fight for basic access to education, staff shouldn’t have to battle for workplace adjustments or inclusive work environments.

When universities create genuinely inclusive environments, they benefit from the expertise and perspectives that staff with disability bring. Research shows that diverse teams make better decisions and produce more innovative outcomes. Yet too many brilliant minds are excluded from academia or forced to hide their disability to survive in exclusionary systems.

Recommendation 6: Ensure DDA reforms address both student and employment contexts

All recommendations in this submission - positive duty, removal of “reasonable” qualifiers, inherent requirements reform, strengthened DAPs, and regulatory oversight - should apply equally to universities’ responsibilities as employers as well as education providers.

Conclusion

The current DDA framework is failing students and staff with disability in higher education. This review represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape how disability rights work in Australia. Students with disability deserve better than their experiences consistently being rated worst across every measure of university experience (see Student Experience Survey data over the last decade). We deserve education that builds our aspirations rather than crushing them. We deserve to be partners in creating solutions rather than having to fight for basic access.

The disparity in the Issues Paper - with “school” appearing over 40 times whilst “university” barely makes it into single digits - reflects a broader pattern where higher education gets overlooked in disability reform conversations. Yet universities are where some of the most significant barriers to inclusion persist with the greatest opportunity for transformation.

I’m seeing a shift. The Departments of Education and the Attorney-General are starting to see the importance of considering tertiary education in these conversations. The Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC) representatives attended the recent DDA Review Roundtable on education - something I have never seen in a disability sector space before. This growing recognition must translate into specific higher education considerations in the final reforms.

The reforms proposed in this review - positive duty, removal of “reasonable” qualifiers, reformed inherent requirements, strengthened DAPs, and improved monitoring - together create a framework that could genuinely transform higher education for students and staff with disability, but only if they include specific consideration of the higher education context, and establish clear regulatory oversight through TEQSA.

Crucially, the AGD must work in partnership with other review and reform processes, such as the TEQSA Act review and the DSE review, to ensure genuine system change.

The time for aspirational commitments without accountability is over. Students and staff with disability deserve nothing less than full access to the transformative power of higher education.