Brotherhood of St Laurence Working for an Australia free of poverty

Review of the Disability Discrimination Act

Brotherhood of St. Laurence October 2025

For further information or to discuss this submission, please contact:

redacted

redacted

redacted

redacted

redacted

redacted

redacted

redacted

redacted

Summary

The Brotherhood of St. Laurence (BSL) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Review of the Disability Discrimination Act (the Act) and improve protections from discrimination for people with disability. This review represents a significant step forward in incorporating the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (DRC) and achieving the vision of building a more inclusive society.

This submission was developed in consultation with BSL staff who work with people with disability across Disability Services, Early Childhood, Employment and Aged Care, in addition to direct consultation with members of the disability community within BSL’s network. This consultation included two online sessions with 36 BSL staff (some are people with disability themselves), one online session with approximately 10 people with disability, and 19 responses from BSL staff and people with disability/carers through surveys. Through these consultations we heard different examples of discrimination that people with disability face; the challenges of a complaints-only process to addressing discrimination; and ideas for improving the Act.

This submission provides some context of progress in Australia to address discrimination, findings from BSL’s consultation of people with disability regarding discrimination, and recommended changes to the Act.

Brotherhood of St. Laurence ABN 24 603 467 024
ARBN 100 042 822
redacted

The four priorities for updating the Act identified by our staff and people with disability in our community and the related recommendations are as follows:

1. Update the definition of disability to reflect the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD), include a definition for neurodivergence and recognise the interconnected nature of discrimination across identities and communities.
2. Introduce a positive duty for duty holders to move from a complaints-driven process to a system of proactively preventing discrimination as far as practicable.
3. Introduce an ability to provide collective complaints and, in the longer-term, a mechanism for intersectional complaints to allow for people to make complaints collectively to minimise risk of repercussions and to reflect that discrimination in areas other than disability can compound and reinforce disability discrimination.
4. Promote inclusive practice through Disability Action Plans (DAPs) providing the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) with powers to provide advice and support the development of and reporting against DAPs, including setting minimum standards and timeframes for DAPs that should be co-designed with the disability community.

1 The Brotherhood of St. Laurence and disability

BSL is a social justice organisation working towards an Australia free of poverty. Our purpose is to advance a fair Australia through our leadership on policy reform, our partnerships with communities and the quality of our services. Our approach is informed directly by people experiencing disadvantage and uses evidence drawn from our research, together with insights from our programs and services, to develop practical solutions that work.

BSL has operated as a NDIS Partner in the Community (PITC) since 2016. We are contracted by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) to deliver Local Area Coordination (LAC) and the early childhood approach in Victoria across the North Eastern Melbourne, Hume/Merri-bek, Brimbank/Melton, Western Melbourne and Bayside Peninsula areas. This work includes building community capacity and inclusion through place-based projects.

BSL aspires to be an employer of choice for people with disability, and we acknowledge our positive obligation to uphold the rights of our workforce and our ethical duty to take proactive steps. In-line with this aspiration, BSL is currently developing our second Disability Action Plan (DAP) to advance our effort to be a more accessible and inclusive organisation.

2 Disability discrimination – progress to note, and further work needed

In 2019, the United Nations (UN) Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities expressed concerns about Australia’s slow progress on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights

of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD). 1 Since their report there has been significant action to address those concerns, including Australia’s Disability Strategy (ADS) 2021–31 alongside the DRC; the NDIS Review; rolling inquiries by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme; reform of Disability Employment Services; the development of the NDIS Participant Employment Strategy and the Employ My Ability Strategy; the National Autism Strategy; the inquiry into Workforce Australia; the review of the Disability Services Act; and the National Cabinet Agreement for Foundational Supports and the related Thriving Kids announcement.

The commitment to action across governments and jurisdictions is commendable. However, without coordinated accountability for outcomes and enshrining the Convention obligations into law, Australia’s commitment to the UN CRPD will not be fully realised. This has been evidenced across different areas including the education system, 2 universal design in housing, 3 employment services and engagement in the justice system 4 among others.

3 Experiences of disability discrimination

People with disability are still experiencing substantial discrimination, with most recent estimates showing that one in six people with disability aged 15–64 have experienced discrimination in the past year, 5 and that Australia has not yet fulfilled our obligation under the UN CRPD. This review of the Act is an important step to better realise Australia’s vision of an inclusive society. Following our consultation with staff and people with disability, we provide some examples of the types of discrimination people with disability face to show how important reform is to improve the protections of people with disability and prevent future harm.

Importantly, people with disability consulted stated that discrimination is not a one-off experience, and the impact of discrimination is cumulative. It can affect their health and wellbeing, and their ability to be part of the community and partake in day-to-day activities. Notably, witnessing

1 United Nations Office of the High Commissioner 2019, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities reviews report of Australia, 13 September 2019. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2019/09/committee-rights-persons-disabilities-reviews-report-australia 2 Australian Coalition for Inclusive Education 2020, Driving change: A roadmap for achieving inclusive education in Australia. Available at: https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-05/171663_children_and_young_people_with_disability_australia_supporting_document.pdf 3 Australian Network for Universal Housing Design 2020, Universal design in housing: reporting on Australia’s obligations to the UNCPRD. Available at: https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/1182351/Publication-Universal-design-in-housingReporting-on-Australias-obligations-to-the-UNCRPD-updated.pdf 4 Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability 2020, Australia allowing human rights violations of people with disability. Available at: https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/news-and-media/media-releases/australia-allowing-human-rightsviolations-people-disability-disability-royal-commission-report 5 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2024, People with disability in Australia: disability discrimination. Available at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/disability/people-with-disability-in-australia/contents/justice-and-safety/disability-discrimination?gh_jid=5590456003

discrimination of friends, family members, colleagues and others with disability can also add to this cumulative impact.

Additionally, people with disability who are part of other marginalised communities often experience compounding discrimination, which can result in more complex impacts than those caused by disability discrimination alone. It is critical that our laws do not try and box people into individual identity categories and, instead, recognise what marginalised communities already know: experiences of discrimination are intertwined and cannot be neatly categorised. 6

BSL acknowledges that the DRC was an important landmark in highlighting the discrimination people with disability still experience in Australia. Through over 222 recommendations, the final report called for a radical shift to ensure the rights of people with disability are adequately protected and our communities are truly inclusive.

BSL notes that the recommendations of the DRC were underpinned by four years of evidence gathering, testimony, reflection and nearly 8,000 submissions. We also acknowledge the courage of the people providing testimony with often traumatic lived experience. We support the recommendations from the DRC that the Act be updated to improve protections for people with disability. Additionally, we have drawn on BSL’s own consultation to provide further detail on areas including employment, education and training, health, transport and reporting.

Employment

Many people with disability and staff who work with people with disability highlighted employment as a key source of disability discrimination. This echoes data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) in 2024, which found, of people with disability who experienced discrimination in the past year, one in four said it was by an employer and 18% said it was from colleagues. 7 In BSL’s consultations people raised this as an issue of both direct and indirect disability discrimination. Some of the key issues identified are summarised below:

• Recruitment processes: People with disability consulted by BSL highlighted that recruitment processes may present several challenges, including use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to screen candidates – this is also reflected in broader research 8 – and prospective employers not providing reasonable adjustments during the recruitment process. Additionally, many people with disability said they do not feel safe enough to disclose their disability during the recruitment process, often foregoing adjustments to minimise the risk of discrimination.

6 Lawler, Sekar and Putri 2024, Beyond identity: unlocking the potential of intersectionality. University of Melbourne. Available at: https://mspgh.unimelb.edu.au/centres-institutes/nossal-institute-for-global-health/Disability-Equity-and-Rights/disability-and-intersectionality-what-does-viewing-disability-from-an-intersectionality-lens-mean 7 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2024, People with disability in Australia: disability discrimination. 8 United Nations 2024, Building an accessible future for all: AI and the inclusion of persons with disabilities. Available at: https://unric.org/en/building-an-accessible-future-for-all-ai-and-the-inclusion-of-persons-with-disabilities/

• Lack of clarity about the inherent requirements of the job: People with disability stated that current or prospective employers are not always clear about the inherent requirements of a job. This can lead to people with disability taking on roles they are unable to reasonably fulfil or not seeking employment opportunities – for example an employer might say that having a driver’s licence is essential, when they mean the ability to travel for work is essential.
• Lack of consultation regarding workplace adjustments: Feedback from people with disability indicated that while workplace adjustments are frequently requested, consultation during the process is not always consistent. This can lead to less effective outcomes, or instances where employers cite ‘unjustifiable hardship’ without providing sufficient justification.
• Procurement policies: People with disability told us a key source of indirect discrimination in workplaces is through procurement policies not considering accessibility in processes. Failure to consider accessibility needs in procurement leads to digital solutions, physical goods or training that is not accessible to all staff in an organisation – for example procuring training from a supplier that is delivered via an online portal that is inaccessible for people who are blind or have a vision impairment.
• Career progression: People with disability also stated that, due to their disability and related requirements, they are often excluded from career progression opportunities. Examples that were raised include the need to regularly use personal leave can create the perception they were unreliable and not being able to attend a workplace in-person meant senior managers had perceptions that the person was unreliable or unable to fulfil a role.

Education and training

People with disability and BSL staff consulted and surveyed raised education and training as another key source of discrimination against people with disability. This was demonstrated through the following examples:

• Restricted hours of, or exclusion from, Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) or school: Many caregivers of children with disability said that an ECEC provider or school had restricted their child’s attendance, or that they were excluded entirely from attending. This was particularly the case where the child’s disability included behaviours of concern.
• Medical model of disability: Many BSL staff consulted highlighted the challenge of children needing a formal medical diagnosis to get support from their ECEC provider or school, which reinforces a deficit framing and the medical model of disability which can reinforce stigma and discrimination. BSL staff highlighted the critical nature of utilising the social model of disability to apply for funding support through inclusion programs for children who have additional needs in the classroom.

These insights are echoed in a report by Children and Young People with Disability Australia (CYDA), which showed that 72% of survey participants reported being excluded from activities at school, 21%

of caregivers surveyed reported their child had been suspended within the past year and 27% had faced disciplinary absences involving restricted school hours. 9

Health

Health was also identified as a key area where discrimination occurs. The consultation findings noted below are consistent with wider evidence and literature, such as AIHW data that has highlighted that 1 in 3 people with disability who experienced discrimination in the past year said it was by a person who provided goods or service, the biggest group of whom were health staff (22%). 10

• Racial discrimination: BSL staff raised the impact of racial discrimination on disability diagnosis, where medical professionals show racial bias against First Nations people or people of colour. This can cause a delay in diagnosis because a medical professional is not taking symptoms seriously, which can cause potentially life-threatening impact, or cause the misdiagnosis of a condition based on racial stereotyping about symptoms or behaviours. This is echoed in the AHRC report, Health Inequities in Australia, released earlier this year. 11
• Gender discrimination: BSL Staff also raised the impact of gender discrimination on disability diagnosis, which reflects a similar pattern to racial discrimination. This can particularly be seen in medical professionals not taking concerns seriously for women or people of marginalised gender identities, particularly in relation to a delayed diagnosis of chronic pain conditions or underdiagnosis of some forms of neurodivergence such as Autism or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). 12 Gender discrimination is well-evidenced in the literature. 13

Transport

Transport is another key source of discrimination for people with disability, with public transport still often not accessible for a range of reasons. These include train drivers refusing to support wheelchair access, and wheelchair inaccessible trams still operating in Victoria.

• Assistance animals: People with disability and staff raised the issue of being refused service from rideshare companies due to bringing an assistance animal, or the driver assuming because the animal is not wearing an assistance animal vest, they are not legitimate.

9 Children and Young People with Disability Australia (CYDA) 2025, Disillusion and delay: CYDA’s survey of the learning experiences of children and young people with disability in 2024. Available at: https://cyda.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/DOC_Final_EducationSurveyReport_DisillusionandDelay_20250710.pdf 10 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2024, People with disability in Australia: Disability Discrimination. 11 Australian Human Rights Commission 2025, Health inequities in Australia: a scoping review on the impact of racism on Indigenous and other negatively racialized communities’ health outcomes and healthcare access. Available at: https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/race-discrimination/publications/health-inequities-australia 12 Australian College of Nursing 2022, Opening the lid on gender inequality in health care. Available at: https://www.acn.edu.au/nurseclick/opening-the-lid-on-gender-inequality-in-health-care 13 For example Ibid.

Reporting of disability discrimination

People with disability who were consulted alongside staff who work with the disability community highlighted numerous barriers to reporting instances of disability discrimination. These are summarised below:

• Repercussions from reporting: Many people with disability and staff raised that from their experience there is no benefit from reporting complaints – whether it be to an employer, an organisation or the AHRC – instead, it can often be a damaging and negative experience that can harm future work prospects. People with disability also raised the lack of practical supports within organisations to report instances of discrimination, which led to fewer incidents of reporting.
• Limited ability for action under the Act: Currently there is limited scope for the AHRC to hold organisations accountable for breaches of the Act. Instead, people with disability must go through a conciliation process in which the AHRC acts as an independent third party. 14 People with disability said this process can be challenging, particularly in an employment context where the balance of power is usually skewed towards an employer who can afford legal representation.
• Requirement to identify as a person with disability: Many staff identified that in order to report complaints regarding discrimination a person must identify with having ‘disability’, which some people do not for a range of reasons. This can include the impact of shame or stigma associated with disability, differing cultural understandings of disability or fear of repercussions related to adopting the label of disability – such as exclusion from permanent residency or citizenship.
• Education-first approach: Many people with disability and staff also noted they prefer to take an education-first approach to instances of discrimination and provide information and advice to the person who discriminated against them or the person they support, rather than navigate formal reporting channels and processes. This approach places an emotional load on the person with disability. They are working overtime to advocate for their rights in ways that people without disability are not required to.

This provides further evidence of the need to move away from a complaints-driven system to a proactive obligation to prevent discrimination as far as reasonably possible. Informed by this consultation, BSL advocates the following reforms to the Act in areas of updating the definition of disability, introducing a positive duty, allowing for collective complaints, as well as intersectional complaints in the long-term and strengthening of DAPs.

14 Australian Human Rights Commission 2025, Conciliation – how it works. Available at: https://humanrights.gov.au/complaints/complaint-guides/conciliation-how-it-works

4 Update the definition of disability

Consultation questions

1. How should disability be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act?
2. What factors should be considered in developing a new definition of disability?

BSL recommends updating the definition of discrimination in the Act to better reflect the UN CRPD and include a specific definition of neurodivergence. The current definition of disability in the Act is essentially medical and uses deficit-based language. However, the definition in the UN CRPD utilises the social model of disability, which highlights the barriers and inaccessibility created by society for people with disability.

Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others. 15

In addition to this definition, it is also critical to introduce a definition of neurodivergence within the Act to ensure protections are extended to people who would not consider themselves to have an impairment (used in the UN CRPD definition above) but instead identify as neurodivergent. An example definition is provided below.

Neurodivergent is an umbrella term to describe individuals whose mind or functioning falls outside dominant societal norms. It is an umbrella term that includes innate or genetic conditions as well as acquired or developed conditions. This can refer to thinking, processing, interpreting, feeling, communicating, socialising, behaving and more. 16

Additionally, ableism works together with other systems of discrimination such as racism, homophobia, transphobia and gender discrimination among others. It is important that the definition of disability within the updated Act recognises that discrimination across these areas is interconnected and often compounds the experiences of disability discrimination. In particular, cultural differences in understanding and representing disability may lead to a person not identifying with the term disability and, as a result, they may not be provided with the support or protection that is required under the law. 17 BSL therefore recommends that the definition of disability also include references to the

15 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 1: Purpose. Available at: https://social.desa.un.org/issues/disability/crpd/article-1-purpose 16 Wise SJ 2023, We’re all neurodiverse: how to build a neurodiversity-affirming future and challenge neuronormativity, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, UK. Note: ‘Neurodivergence’ was coined by Kassiane Asasumasu in 2000 and is community-led terminology that many within the disability community have adopted and feel represents them better than disordered or impairment language. 17 People with Disability Australia 2021, The experiences and perspectives of people with disability from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Available at: https://pwd.org.au/the-experiences-and-perspectives-of-people-with-disability-from-culturally-and-linguistically-diverse-backgrounds-joint-submission-to-the-disability-royal-commission-by-pwda-neda-and-fecca/

compounding nature of discrimination across communities and identities, and that cultural understandings of disability may vary.

5 Introduce a positive duty

Consultation questions

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

BSL supports the implementation of a positive duty in the Act. This approach would shift Australia from having a complaints-driven system to one that proactively considers how to prevent discrimination for people with disability. It would also improve accountability and inclusion through systemic change.

BSL recommends the positive duty should also include the following:

• Application of a positive duty: Similar to the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act positive duty obligation, 18 we recommend that this apply to:
  • employers
  • providers of accommodation, education or goods and services
  • clubs and sporting organisations
  • health providers (due to high levels of discrimination experienced in the health area, BSL recommends explicitly including health providers as having an obligation to positive duty).
• Adequate timeframe for implementation: There should be sufficient time for organisations to understand their new obligations and enact any changes needed to meet the new requirements. This should include longer timeframes for changes for buildings to meet accessibility requirements – as with the compliance timeframes under the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport. 19
• Reasonable and proportionate: BSL supports that positive duty be applied differently based on organisation size and type of work the organisation undertakes, with minimum standards for smaller organisations. Ensuring the positive duty is reasonable and proportionate will reduce any unnecessary administrative burden on organisations in its implementation.

18 Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission 2025, Positive duty. Available at: https://www.humanrights.vic.gov.au/for-organisations/positive-duty/ 19 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts 2025, What are the disability standards for accessible public transport 2002 (Transport Standards), DITRDCSA, Canberra. Available at: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure-transport-vehicles/transport-accessibility/transport-disability-standards

• Advice and support for implementation: Based on BSL’s implementation of the positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act we recommend government ensure there are detailed toolkits or advice on how to effectively implement the new duty. These should provide tailored advice based on organisation size and any sector-specific standards. This advice should be accompanied by active outreach by government to support implementation – particularly for smaller organisations – and potentially a hotline or chat support to provide real-time advice.
• A range of sanctions for non-compliance, including more severe penalties for repeat non-compliance: To make the Act more enforceable, BSL also recommends introducing a range of sanctions for non-compliance, ranging from less severe (e.g. advice, warnings) to more severe penalties for repeat non-compliance. The introduction of a sanctions regime should also allow an appropriate transition period for implementation. This would bring the Act more in-line with international standards – such as with the European Accessibility Act where penalties vary by member states but include financial penalties, market suspensions, public notices and imprisonment. 20 Any penalties should be proportionate to the impact of the discrimination and size of the organisation.
• Public reporting: Similar to reporting requirements for larger organisations through the Workplace Gender Equality Agency under the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, 21 organisations should be required to publicly demonstrate how they are meeting their obligations on key agreed metrics, so progress can be seen and trusted by employees, people with disability and the wider community. Over time, a duty such as public reporting that normalises disability inclusion as a core part of good governance and risk management would support culture change - akin to gender equality, workplace health and safety obligations which are now generally understood as ‘business as usual’.
• Review of use of algorithms and AI: The positive duty and related advice for implementation should also include a review of the use of algorithms and AI in employment, recruitment and ongoing employee management, and provisions of goods or services to ensure these are not a source of indirect discrimination against people with disability. The risks and benefits of AI are examined in a report by Gerard Quinn, former UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities that can be used to inform advice to organisations. 22

20 Fieldfisher 2025, Understanding the European Accessibility Act: risks of non-compliance and key authorities. Available: https://www.fieldfisher.com/en/insights/understanding-the-european-accessibility-act-risks-of-non-compliance-and-key-authorities 21 Australian Government Workplace Gender Equality Agency 2025, Reporting gender equality performance. Available at: https://www.wgea.gov.au/about/what-we-do/reporting 22 United Nations 2024, Building an accessible future for all: AI and the inclusion of persons with disabilities. Available at: https://unric.org/en/building-an-accessible-future-for-all-ai-and-the-inclusion-of-persons-with-disabilities/

Case study: European Accessibility Act

The European Accessibility Act (EAA) is a law that sets minimum accessibility requirements for a range of products and services in the EU internal market.

The EAA takes the legal form of a Directive, which means that it sets binding provisions but lets EU countries (Member States) decide how they want to reach them through national legislation. The EAA includes positive obligation for in-scope operators to ensure their products and services are designed accessibly for people with disability to maximise their ability to use them. This scope extends to digital accessibility, which is not covered explicitly in Australia’s Disability Discrimination Act.

Source: https://www.edf-feph.org/eu-accessibility-act/

6 Allow for collective complaints and, in the longer-term, explore a mechanism for intersectional complaints

Consultation questions

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

BSL recommends introducing the ability to make collective complaints as well as complaints for multiple or combined protected attributes. The rationale for these is detailed below:

• Collective complaints: Currently under the Act there is only an ability to make individual complaints, which can be supported by individual advocacy bodies or lawyers supporting individuals. However, there is no ability to provide collective complaints where multiple people are impacted by the breach of the Act or discrimination. As highlighted earlier, this puts a significant onus on the individual and can increase the risk of repercussions for them from employers or organisations that the complaint is lodged against. Introducing the ability to make collective complaints would better align the Act with international standards, including the European Accessibility Act (EAA) where individuals, organisations of people with disability, public bodies and others can take action where a breach of the EAA occurs. 23 In an Australian context this could extend to include organisations such as Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations (ACCOs) and other community-controlled organisations that can act on behalf of members in their community where breaches occur. If the Attorney-General’s office adopts this recommendation it will also be critical to make sure there are safeguards in place to ensure that all complainants listed are legitimate and have agreed to be named in the complaint - and that community-

23 European Disability Forum 2025, The European Accessibility Act. Available at: https://www.edf-feph.org/eu-accessibility-act/

controlled organisations and disability advocacy organisations are appropriately resourced to take on this responsibility.

• Intersectional complaints: Consultation feedback noted the challenge of considering intersectional complaints (the ability to make a complaint relating to one or more protected attribute in order to reflect people’s holistic experience and recognise their interconnected identities and the communities they belong to, rather than addressing each element of a complaint separately). Addressing this may require a longer-term approach that considers how the Act interacts with other relevant federal discrimination acts, the roles and powers of different Commissioners and how they can work together to address intersectional complaints. This will also require an understanding of how different forms of discrimination interact and how this can be reflected in comprehensive policies, training and complaints processes. It is, however, important to recognise – in both law and practice – that people with disability can experience multiple forms of interconnected discrimination.

7 Promote inclusion through Disability Action Plans

Consultation questions

41. Should there be minimum requirements for action plans (such as through guidelines) and what should the minimum requirements cover?
42. Should the Australian Human Rights Commission be able to reject action plans that fail to meet these requirements?
43. Should there be a set period of time for which an action plan is valid?
44. Are there any other changes to the action plan process that you would recommend?

BSL recommends updating the Act to enable the AHRC to provide greater support to organisations for the development of Disability Actions Plans (DAPs) and to request information about outcomes from previous DAPs.

BSL recommends this include:

• Co-design minimum requirements for DAPs with people with disability: The AHRC should co-design the new minimum requirements and applicable timeframes for DAPs alongside people with disability to ensure they reflect their priorities, needs and aspirations for inclusion. These minimum requirements could then be used as the basis for the AHRC accepting or rejecting DAPs and providing advice on how to improve to meet the minimum requirements.
• External accountability: The development of effective DAPs needs to be matched with effective reporting against outcomes. A useful model for the AHRC to enact this new accountability is Reconciliation Australia and its oversight of Reconciliation Action Plans (RAPs). That framework requires organisations to demonstrate their progress and outcomes, which are then assessed and reported on. 24 A similar approach could apply to DAPs where the AHRC would play a role in

24 Reconciliation Australia 2025, The RAP process. Available at: https://www.reconciliation.org.au/reconciliation-action-plans/the-rap-process/

reviewing, verifying and confirming actions that would strengthen accountability and ensure disability inclusion is not just promised but also delivered. This could be similar to RAPs including differing levels of progress and action based on current progress on inclusion journeys and achievements in previous DAPs. 25 These could be connected to the proposed reporting on the positive duty detailed above to minimise administrative burden on organisations.

• Leverage government procurement power: It is essential that the federal government leverage its procurement power to promote inclusion. This could be achieved through requiring any organisation that applies for government contracts over a certain dollar amount to have a DAP or be willing to create one during the contract period. This may necessitate updating the Commonwealth Procurement Framework to specify this requirement.
• Adequate funding to the AHRC: The changes above should be supported by adequate funding and resourcing for the AHRC to enact and support these measures.

25 Reconciliation Australia 2025, About RAPs. Available at: https://www.reconciliation.org.au/about-raps/