NDIA Accountability Project

Strengthening protections for people with disability through legislative reform

‹ PrevPage 1 of 15 · Source p. 1Next ›

Disability Advocacy Network Australia

2025

Submission

Disability Discrimination Act Review

October 2025

About DANA

DANA is the national representative body for a network of independent disability advocacy organisations throughout Australia.

Our Vision

DANA’s vision is of a nation that includes and values people with disabilities and respects human rights for all.

Our Purpose

DANA’s purpose is to strengthen, support and provide a collective voice for independent disability advocacy organisations across Australia that advocates for and with people with disability.

We achieve this by:

  • promoting the role and value of independent disability advocacy
  • providing a collective voice for our members
  • providing communication and information sharing between disability advocacy organisations
  • providing support and development for members, staff and volunteers of disability advocacy organisations
  • building the evidence base to demonstrate the value of disability advocacy
  • promoting the human rights, needs, value and diversity of people with disabilities

Contact: redacted Director of Policy and Advocacy

Email: redacted

Table of Contents

Submission responses

Part 1 — Updating understandings of disability and disability discrimination

1. How should disability be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act?

The current definition of disability in the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) has been criticised for its use of highly medicalised and deficit-based language, which measures degree of disability as degrees of distance from a ‘non-disabled’ norm. The DDA definition’s complexity is also out of step with definitions used by several states and territories and by federal statutory bodies. The definition used in the DDA is also inconsistent with the UNCRPD, and the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has noted that Australia’s inconsistent official definitions of disability have a negative impact on data collection and monitoring of disability rights in Australia.¹ Reviewing the definition of disability should therefore aim to harmonise with existing legislative models where possible.

The social model of disability has been noted by legal scholars, such as former Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Robin Banks, as being difficult to incorporate within anti-discrimination law definitions, as the social model defines disability as produced by barriers to access.² Given that discrimination itself is a barrier to access, defining disability as being produced by barriers to access could mean that only those who are already proven to be experiencing discrimination are able to bring forward matters under the Act. While the social model of disability has a strong social and political utility more broadly, it should be acknowledged that there are unique challenges when using it as the basis for a legal definition in the context of the Disability Discrimination Act. It remains important that archaic medicalisation, pathologising language, and implied need for formal diagnosis are avoided in any future definition to be used.

The key principles for reforming the definition of disability should be to follow the lead of UNCRPD and state and territory models to prioritise functional measures of disability, using simple, direct language. One potential model already in use by the ABS follows the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) model as used by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which maintains a focus on functional impairment in environmental context.³ This approach combines elements of social-model thinking around

¹ ‘Understanding Disability Statistics in the Census and the Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers | Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (27 July 2022) https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/detailed-methodology-information/information-papers/understanding-disability-statistics-census-and-survey-disability-ageing-and-carers ; ‘International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)’ https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health ² Banks, R, ‘A Rose Is a Rose Is a Rose : But Not All Discrimination Smells the Same. An Exploration of the Capacity of the Psychology of Stigma, Prejudice and Discrimination to Enhance Discrimination Law,’ < https://doi.org/10.25959/25194221.v1> ³ ‘Understanding Disability Statistics in the Census and the Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers | Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (27 July 2022) https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/detailed-methodology-information/information-papers/understanding-disability-statistics-census-and-survey-disability-ageing-and-carers ; ‘International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)’

disability as contextually produced, while also avoiding the potential for legal difficulties where barriers are explicitly named in the definition itself. One limitation of this definition is that it requires a six-month period since onset of impairment, which may exclude those with variable or newly onset conditions. Adopting the functional definitional framework but removing the time length stipulation may be one way to meet all of the above needs, and has the further benefit of more closely harmonising Federal approaches to defining disability with those in use internationally.

However, any new definition should be developed in close consultation with DROs, DRCOs, and the disability community more broadly to ensure these principles are maintained as this is a complex matter. Accounting for imputed or assumed disabilities; including bodily variations currently considered under the rubric of ‘disfigurement’ e.g. facial difference; and health status (e.g. HIV status) should also be incorporated within the scope of the legislation to achieve greater consistency with international standards.

2. What factors should be considered in developing a new definition of disability?

Factors which should be considered in developing a new definition of disability include:

  • simplicity of language;
  • emphasis on functional disability as impairment, rather than medical language;
  • retain scope for where a person is imputed to be disabled or where a disability is no longer current;
  • alignment with states and territories (e.g. QLD, Victoria) where more rights-based and functional language are used;⁴
  • alignment with UNCRPD and associated data reporting requirements
  • accounting for bodily variations currently considered under the rubric of ‘malfunction, malformation or disfigurement’ e.g. facial difference;
  • accounting for illness or health status (e.g. HIV status);
  • not requiring that the individual explicitly identify with the label of “disabled” in order to pursue matters under the Act.

Crucially, these factors are not exhaustive and should be treated as a starting point for a more dedicated consultative process around federal legislative definitions of disability to be undertaken with DROs, DPOs, and with the disabled community more broadly.

While disputes regarding the definition of disability under the DDA are not frequently debated in matters brought to court under the Act, a convoluted definition with highly medicalised language can function as a barrier to engagement with the Act overall. This is because the definition informs whether a person with disability perceives that the Act could apply to their specific experiences. A complex definition using highly pathologising language is therefore a significant cognitive, intellectual and energetic barrier to engagement, even with advocates’

https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health ⁴ E.g. Equal Opportunities Act (Vic) (2010); Human Rights Act (QLD) (2019).

support. This means that those who lack the resources to engage with the law’s current complexity are functionally barred from engaging with discrimination matters entirely. This awareness should inform any further more substantive and appropriately scaled consultation process on the definition.

3. Would the Disability Discrimination Act be strengthened by expressly allowing claims to be brought for multiple or combined protected attributes?

The DDA is fundamentally weakened by being an isolated piece of legislation which is designed to capture one aspect of discrimination in isolation. By virtue of its restricted scope, the DDA functionally discourages people from pursuing matters where disability discrimination intersects with discrimination based on protected characteristics which are within the scope of other anti-discrimination legislation. This has been noted as a limitation by both disability advocates and in reports to the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP).⁵

The most thorough way to ensure that intersections of protected characteristics are appropriately addressed by federal legislation would be to develop an integrated anti-discrimination law which spans all protected categories, and with room to highlight additional compounding areas of discrimination. This is consistent with the Australian Human Rights Commission’s own recommendations. This goal of integrating isolated anti-discrimination law can be pursued alongside development of a more explicitly affirming rights-centred legislative structure, as DANA has argued for as a co-signatory to the 2024 Joint Position Statement by DROs on a Human Rights Act.⁶ This is discussed further in DANA’s submission to question 50 on making the DDA fit for purpose into the future, though it should be noted here that strengthening the DDA in this regard should not be pursued in isolation from other legislative reform.

Given the complexity of these proposals, however, these are likely longer-term legislative goals, and therefore shorter-term action to refine the DDA should be pursued in the interim to improve its capacity to support individuals experiencing compounding discrimination. To ensure that the DDA is made more accessible and fit for purpose in the shorter term, amending the DDA to actively support matters of intersectional and compounding discrimination will be crucial to fill existing gaps in legislative coverage.

⁵ United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, “Harmonization of National Laws with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Country Case Study: Australia” (2023), < https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/ESCAP-2023-BP-f.pdf ⁶ ‘Strengthening Protection of the Rights of People with Disability through a National Human Rights Act (HRA): Joint Position Statement’, Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) (19 July 2024) https://wwda.org.au/our-resources/publication/strengthening-protection-of-the-rights-of-people-with-disability-through-a-national-human-rights-act-hra/

4. Could any other changes be made to the Disability Discrimination Act to recognise and provide protection for people with disability who have intersecting identities, or addressing compounding discrimination?

In addition to characteristics protected by anti-discrimination law, disability advocates working with rural and remote communities have noted that geographical access can be a significant factor in compounding discrimination. Including reference to geographic isolation or rural/remote location as an element that can compound discrimination, alongside areas protected in existing anti-discrimination law, would help address a current gap in protection for more geographically isolated people with disabilities.

5. What test should be used to ensure that the definition of direct discrimination is easy to understand and implement for both duty holders and people with disability, and why?

The distinction between direct and indirect discrimination has been widely identified as an archaic element of the DDA which adds further complexity without improving accessibility or outcomes. Removing the comparator test has been recommended by the Justice and Equity Centre and National Legal Aid. The Justice and Equity Centre recommendation that replacing the comparator test with a test to assess whether a person with disability has experienced “detriment” or “unfavourable treatment”, would reduce the complexity and exclusionary nature of the current legal framing.

6. How should the burden of proof be addressed in the Disability Discrimination Act? (Retain current burden of proof model, Fair Work Act burden of proof model, United Kingdom burden of proof model)

The high burden of proof requirements of the DDA are part of what makes engaging with this law so inaccessible for many people with disability and advocates. A key principle in reforming the DDA should be to reduce the administrative burden on people with disability at every stage possible, in order to increase accessibility for those most vulnerable to discrimination. The current burden of proof model should not be retained. Aligning with the FWA burden of proof model and removing the comparator test provide two ways that this administrative burden can be reduced for people with disability.

7. How should the definition of indirect discrimination be amended to ensure that it is easy to understand and implement?

The emphasis on distinguishing direct and indirect discrimination potentially overemphasises questions of intent in discrimination, where the significant factor is the actual impact as experienced by the person making the claim. In many cases the pressing concern is not the degree of directness or mechanism by which discrimination occurred, but how that discrimination affected the person who is alleging discrimination. The function of distinguishing direct and indirect discrimination appears largely to enable duty holders to distance themselves from the impact of their actions, by adding further complexity into the assessment. Indirect and direct discrimination often co-occur and are not mutually exclusive from each other, and requiring the classification of discrimination by “type” fails to account

for the ways in which discrimination impacts people. Simplifying the legislation by removing these terms entirely would ensure the legislation is more fit for purpose by maintaining a focus on the actual harm being done.

8. Should the reasonableness element in the definition of indirect discrimination be: (Removed; retained and supplemented with a list of factors to consider; or replaced by a legitimate and proportionate test)

The concept of “reasonableness” as an element of the DDA introduces unnecessary further complexity for people with disability and for duty holders. The very foundational premise of legislation against disability discrimination is that there is a potential for some sections of society to view discrimination against people with disability as both reasonable and acceptable, and therefore legislation is needed to prevent and limit that. Incorporating terminology which appeals to the authority of some form of ‘common sense’, when the core topic is the rights of a marginalised group, is questionable in terms of the legitimacy of the Act.

Removing the reasonableness definition in the definition of indirect discrimination would simplify the scope of the act for duty holders, for people with disability, and for advocates. Refocusing this section around the impact of discrimination on people with disabilities would make the Act clearer and more accessible for those it is intended to protect.

11. Should the Disability Discrimination Act be expressly required to be interpreted in a way that is beneficial to people with disability, in line with human rights treaties?

The DDA should be expressly required to be interpreted in a way that is beneficial to people with disability, in line with human rights treaties, in particular with the UNCRPD. This should be explicitly directed in the Act itself.

In order for this requirement to be meaningful and enforceable, however, the DDA must be made more accessible overall, including through reforming the definition of disability and reducing complexity and administrative barriers to engaging with anti-discrimination law as covered elsewhere in DANA’s submissions on this topic.

Part 2 — Positive duty to eliminate discrimination

12. If there was a positive duty in the Disability Discrimination Act, who should it apply to?

Extending positive duty requirements within the DDA provides a crucial mechanism for reducing the high administrative and personal burden placed on people with disability under the existing system. In its current form the DDA requires individual people with disability to raise and pursue matters through a complex and often costly legal process in order to acknowledge wrongs after they have already occurred and damage already done. In practice, this system favours those who are most cognitively and financially able to engage with a complex and lengthy legal process, and that those who are most vulnerable to

discrimination are least supported by the current system. This has been identified by advocates and by legal scholars as being a key barrier to engagement with the Disability Discrimination Act.

Aligning the definition of positive duty under the DDA with how this term is used by other legislation would ensure consistency, coherence and greater accessibility. Defining duty holders as “persons conducting a business or undertaking” would ensure public and private sectors are covered, would ensure volunteering or non-employment relationships, and would link positive duty under the DDA to how it functions under the SDA and to workplace health and safety legislation.

13. Are there lessons from the operation of the positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act that could be incorporated into a positive duty in the Disability Discrimination Act?

In addition to being rolled out federally as part of the Sex Discrimination Act, positive duty towards people with disability has been established at state level by the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act (2010). To date, the AHRC’s enforcement of the SDA’s positive duty requirements of the SDA has been relatively limited, and a commitment to more extensive regulation of duty holders’ compliance would be necessary for any changes in this area to be meaningful and substantive. Encouraging duty holders to conceptualise positive duty in concrete active terms, such as by obliging them to identify and implement adjustments proactively as well as in response to individual requests, emphasizes that engaging with people with disability should be a core assumption of any business or undertaking, and is not optional.

If positive duty requirements are extended along the lines of the SDA, the AHRC would be well placed in theory to oversee education and compliance. However, the development of educational and practical resources for ensuring positive duty is fulfilled should be developed in close consultation with disability community, with DROs, DRCOs and DPOs to ensure that guidance is fit for purpose. Any extension of responsibilities to the AHRC should be accompanied by an appropriate expansion of resources and funding to ensure that these additional responsibilities can be sufficiently fulfilled, with independent monitoring and evaluation to guide the implementation process.

Part 3 — Encouraging inclusion of people with disability in employment, education and other areas of public life

16. Would the creation of a standalone duty to provide adjustments better assist people with disability and duty holders to understand their rights and obligations?

A duty to provide adjustments would ideally be a subset of any meaningful broader positive duty requirement to be implemented under the DDA. A stand-alone duty to provide adjustments would make most sense to implement if reforms to the DDA failed to extend positive duty requirements in general, and in that context, a stand-alone duty to provide adjustments would necessarily be a partial measure that would be more vulnerable to

challenge. A more extensive version of positive duty to prevent discrimination overall, with an explicit stipulation that this includes a duty to provide adjustments, would be preferred. Regardless of how this is framed or formulated, however, any positive duty requirements under the DDA should include the duty to provide adjustments.

Any education and guidance around the provision of a broader positive duty should include specific material on how that broader duty should be fulfilled, including specific guidance around adjustments. In addition to education on what adjustments are possible, one model of communicating what positive duty entails may be the idea of anticipatory adjustments, as required in the UK Equality Act (2010).⁷ This requires public bodies to pre-emptively make common accessibility adjustments to services and facilities broadly in line with Universal Design principles, as a means of building in a higher level of accessibility at the ground level.⁸ Anticipatory adjustments do not preclude the need for further individualised adjustments, however they translate the idea of positive duty into specific practical terms by raising the baseline level of inclusivity that is required for a service to operate. Encouraging duty holders to conceptualise positive duty in concrete active terms such as this, by obliging them to identify and implement adjustments proactively as well as in response to individual requests, emphasises that engaging with people with disability should be a core assumption of any business or undertaking and not an optional extra. Strategies such as this should be developed in consultation with the disability community as part of developing the practical guidance materials to support a broader positive duty under the Act.

The definition of “reasonable” adjustments in the DDA adds additional complexity to the law, especially given that anti-discrimination laws exist because of the existence of conflicting perspectives around what kind of treatment or behavior is “reasonable”. This aspect of the law introduces unnecessary complexity for people with disability and for duty holders. In practice, the impact of the discriminatory practice is what makes the most difference to people experiencing harm. With reference to reasonable adjustments, advocates have repeatedly raised at consultation forums for the DDA that the presence of “reasonableness” in the Act is a redundancy, given that the law already protects “inherent requirements” of a role or service, and defines “unjustifiable hardship” as being the limit of what adjustments are possible. If an adjustment is deemed to be possible, then it should be considered reasonable to be made. This position is consistent with DRC recommendations.

⁷ “Guidance: Reasonable adjustments: a legal duty”, Public Health England (15 September 2020), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reasonable-adjustments-a-legal-duty/reasonable-adjustments-a-legal ⁸ “Public sector organisations shouldn’t simply wait and respond to difficulties as they emerge: the duty on them is ‘anticipatory’, meaning they have to think out what’s likely to be needed in advance.” “Guidance: Reasonable adjustments: a legal duty”, Public Health England (15 September 2020), <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reasonable-adjustments-a-legal-duty/reasonable-adjustments-a-legal-duty>

19. What is your preferred approach to achieving greater fairness and transparency in claims of unjustifiable hardship?

The DRC findings and relevant recommendations make clear that the current framing of “unjustifiable hardship” centres what is “unjustifiable” from the perspective of a duty holder, rather than the perspective of a claimant, which places undue and disproportionate burden on people pursuing claims. As noted in our submissions regarding ‘reasonableness’ in indirect discrimination, and in the idea of ‘reasonable adjustments’, a core problem with the existing terminology of the Act is the use of terms that defer to duty holders’ judgements on what is considered acceptable, feasible or justifiable. Given that duty holders’ definitions of these ideas is frequently the cause of discrimination against people with disability, the language of “unjustifiable hardship” adds further complexity while reframing the Act away from its purported intentions. Consistent with the DRC recommendations, the unjustifiable hardship principle should be reformed to require duty holders to demonstrate “consideration of all available and appropriate alternative measures or actions”, including through genuine and substantive consultation.

Part 4 — Access to Justice

27. How could the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to protect people with disability from offensive behaviour and/or harassment?

A key limitation with the DDA in its current form is that while it does make harassment unlawful, this is currently not clearly defined, which then makes it difficult to enforce. DANA supports Recommendations 4.29 and 4.30 of the Disability Royal Commission, which provided a clear and evidence-based model for reform.⁹ These recommendations include prohibiting offensive behaviour on the basis of disability, in terms modelled on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, with the corresponding exemptions mirroring those in section 18D of that Act, These recommendations also included a standalone prohibition on vilification of people with disability. Implementing these recommendations has the benefit of further harmonising the DDA with other discrimination laws in the short term, reducing barriers to access while ensuring specific needs of people with disability are more fully met. In addition, any future positive duty requirements of the DDA should encompass a duty to take proactive and meaningful action to prevent harassment and vilification, mirroring other anti-discrimination law.

Longer-term, however, a more integrated legislative framework is required to help facilitate a meaningful and substantive cultural shift towards supporting the rights of people with disability, including their right to exist free from harassment and vilification. As per the 2024 Joint Position Statement by DROs including DANA, meaningfully supporting people with disability requires actively affirming their human rights.¹⁰ Clarifying and harmonising the DDA with other relevant laws will help integrate protections for people with disability within that

⁹ “Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability: Final Report - Volume 4, Realising the human rights of people with disability,” (2023) https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report-volume-4-realising-human-rights-people-disability ¹⁰ ‘Strengthening Protection of the Rights of People with Disability through a National Human Rights Act (HRA): Joint Position Statement’, Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) (19 July 2024) https://wwda.org.au/our-resources/publication/strengthening-protection-of-the-rights-of-people-with-disability-through-a-national-human-rights-act-hra/

wider protective network of anti-discrimination law, and in doing so lay groundwork to help facilitate that longer term goal of fuller legislative protection through a proactive and affirming Human Rights Act.

31. How could the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to ensure that it covers policing?

As heard by the Disability Royal Commission, people with disability consistently experience unequal treatment in their interactions with the justice system and with related ‘justice-like’ systems such as child protective services.¹¹ The DRC’s Recommendation 8.19 advised expressly including “services provided by police officers in the course of performing policing duties and powers” in the definition of ‘services’. This is one potential mechanism for including police and related state justice functions within the DDA, however, the extent that these functions should be defined as ‘services’ has been recognised as a potentially complex matter which could have unintended further legal implications. Framing the issue as a debate around whether policing and state functions are ‘services’ risks overshadowing the core point of these DRC recommendations, by emphasising definitions over and above the core functional problem of whether these state functions are included within the DDA at all. Read in the context of the full DRC report, the intent of Recommendation 8.19 is clear that extending the scope of DDA is the desired outcome, rather than requiring the ‘service’ label.

An alternative mechanism raised in submissions by Inclusion Australia and the Justice and Equity Centre would be to create a distinct duty to encompass the exercise of justice-related statutory functions and powers, without requiring these to be labelled as ‘services’. This duty would encompass functions and powers exercised under Federal, State and Territory law, including corrective services, policing, and child protective services. This is a more practical and outcome-oriented strategy which increases protections for people with disability, while avoiding the potential terminology debates to divert from those real material concerns raised in Volume 8 of the DRC Report.

Part 7 — Further options for reform

48. Are there examples of legislative provisions in Commonwealth or state and territory anti-discrimination law that could be drawn on to modernise or strengthen the Disability Discrimination Act?

Current federal anti-discrimination law is largely inaccessible for people with disability, and the inconsistencies between state/territory and federal legislation creates further barriers to pursuing matters related to discrimination. Advocates have reported that federal anti-discrimination law’s narrow scope, highly medicalised framing, and focus on isolated protected characteristics are factors which discourage engagement with the DDA as it currently exists. As such, the complexity and fragmentation of anti-discrimination law poses a functional barrier to people with disability and their advocates.

¹¹ “Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability: Final Report - Volume 8, Criminal justice and people with disability,” (2023) https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/2023-09/Final%20Report%20-%20Volume%208%2C%20Criminal%20justice%20and%20people%20with%20disability.pdf

While state and territory anti-discrimination legislation varies, there are three key elements of state and territory legislation which demonstrate how federal anti-discrimination law can be made more fit for purpose:

  • Integrating anti-discrimination laws into a singular, more expansively focused law which spans multiple protected characteristics, ensuring that intersecting factors are adequately protected
  • Expanding the scope of discrimination law to encompass positive duty, ensuring that anti-discrimination law is no longer purely reactionary and passive in scope
  • Complementing this expanded anti-discrimination law by providing further legislative clarity around human rights, providing active principles-based guidance that allows complexities beyond protected characteristics to be covered more fully.

Expanding proactive rights-based legislation by introducing a Disability Human Rights act was a key recommendation of the Disability Royal Commission which was accepted in principle. In 2024 DANA along with 11 other Disability Representative Organisations released a position statement strongly advocating for a Human Rights Act “that applies specific provisions for disability rights within a broader framework of human rights protection”.

A Human Rights Act which goes beyond disability and encompasses other protected rights categories provides an opportunity to integrate the existing piecemeal federal legislative structure, to harmonise with states and territories, to provide clearer pathways for complex and intersecting matters, and to more fully address the harms caused by compounding discrimination. As noted in the position statement, this has already been successfully done at state and territory level (e.g. Victoria, QLD) and is a feature of relevant legislation in comparable legal systems internationally (e.g. UK Equality Act 2010).

Integrating the scope of anti-discrimination law and complementing it with a proactive human rights approach has further benefits:

  • It brings federal Australian anti-discrimination law into closer alignment with the scope and language of international agreements to which Australia is a signatory, e.g. UNCRPD
  • It allows for harmonisation with definitions used by other federal statutory bodies, (e.g. Australian Bureau of Statistics) easing compliance and regulatory burden, while increasing the legibility and coherence of the existing system for people with disability and advocates.

These principles of greater harmonisation, simplification, and augmenting anti-discrimination law with a proactive rights-based model make anti-discrimination law more accessible to people with disability and their advocates, to duty holders, and to the general public more broadly.

50. How can we ensure the Disability Discrimination Act remains fit-for-purpose into the future?

Directly amending the DDA to encompass positive duty and to cover a simpler, more functional definition of disability provide short term pathways for improved engagement and functioning. Removing the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination, aligning the burden of proof with the FWA and explicitly allowing intersectional concerns to be brought forward will provide short-term improvements.

Longer term, however, the DDA is part of a patchwork of anti-discrimination laws, creating a fragmentation which in itself creates additional complexity and barriers to access for people with disability, especially regarding intersectional complaints. The current federal model is increasingly out of step with the development of state and territory models where a more integrated anti-discrimination law is paired with an explicit legislative affirmation of rights which build in a foundational understanding of the complex intersecting circumstances in which discrimination is experienced. DDA reform in the interim will help facilitate the much-needed transition to a more robust and expansive rights-oriented integrated legislative structure. As DANA has previously stated, along with co-signatories to the DRO Joint Statement on a Human Rights Act in 2024:

“A HRA would provide a more cohesive approach to implementing Australia’s international human rights obligations… [it] reflects the fundamental principle that human rights are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated — they can’t be viewed in isolation. “¹²

51. Are there any other issues with the Disability Discrimination Act that should be considered as part of this review?

As noted consistently during the public forums held as part of this review process, the form and extent of the current review itself poses a high accessibility burden for people with disability and advocates, due to its complexity, high level technical knowledge requirements, and massive scope. This in itself poses barriers to engagement for members of the community. Appropriately scaling future consultations on legislation which affects people with disability is crucial for ensuring that consultation is meaningful and substantive. This includes reducing the overall number of matters taken to consultation at any given time, improving the quality and extent of easy read materials provided throughout, and simpler framing of consultation questions.

Given the scale and extent of proposed changes to be made to the DDA, a more substantive and ongoing process of engagement with DROs, DRCOs, and the broader disabled community will be necessary as new systems are developed. The proposed extension of

¹² ‘Strengthening Protection of the Rights of People with Disability through a National Human Rights Act (HRA): Joint Position Statement’, Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) (19 July 2024) https://wwda.org.au/our-resources/publication/strengthening-protection-of-the-rights-of-people-with-disability-through-a-national-human-rights-act-hra/

positive duty requirements under the Act will require the development of trainings, support materials and resources to guide duty holders as their responsibilities change, and the expertise and insights of people with disability should inform the content of that guidance at all stages to ensure it is fit for purpose. More targeted engagement with sectors of the community impacted by proposed changes to how assistance animals are covered under the Act would also improve the quality of outcomes for people with disability. Overall, ensuring quality outcomes that meet community needs requires substantive and continuous engagement outside the scope of any one formal submission period.

As noted throughout the DRC report, independent monitoring and evaluation of systems which impact people with disability is crucial to ensuring transparent and accountable service of this community. Independent monitoring and evaluation are also cornerstones of the UNCRPD. Implementing ongoing monitoring and evaluation to track the impact of proposed changes, such as extending positive duty powers, will help ensure that new systems are fit for purpose and reflect community needs. Engaging trained and accredited evaluators using appropriate evaluation methodologies, including drawing on lived experience expertise, would help to achieve those goals.