BindiMaps submission

Introduction

BindiMaps welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Australian Government’s review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (the DDA). We strongly support this review as a critical step in strengthening Australia’s legislative framework for equality and ensuring it reflects contemporary understandings of accessibility, inclusion, and participation.

About BindiMaps:

Founded in Australia, BindiMaps is an accessibility technology company dedicated to making complex environments navigable for everyone. Our digital wayfinding platform supports independent navigation through voice, visual, and text guidance, enabling access for people who are blind or have low vision, mobility disabilities, or language barriers.

Our technology operates without physical infrastructure, making it flexible and scalable across public, educational, and commercial environments. We have partnered with organisations across sectors, including the NSW Parliament, ACT Courts, Canberra Institute of Technology, Adelaide Rail, and major cultural events such as Ability Fest. Through thousands of hours of co-design and testing with people with lived experience of disability, BindiMaps has been recognised with Guide Dogs Australia’s Gold Standard for accessibility and by the United Nations World Summit Awards.

Through this work, we have seen that barriers to navigation, information, and spatial awareness remain some of the most persistent and under-recognised forms of discrimination. The inability to find one’s way independently through public, educational, or workplace environments directly affects safety, participation, and dignity. Improving accessibility in these areas is fundamental to equality and inclusion.

Our Submission:

Our submission focuses on reforms that will make the DDA clearer, more consistent, and better equipped to address modern barriers to participation.

Specifically, it addresses the following seven key areas of reform:

1. Updating understandings of disability and disability discrimination – to reflect contemporary models of inclusion and lived experience.
2. Introducing a positive duty to eliminate discrimination – to prevent discrimination before it occurs, particularly in the design of infrastructure, services, and digital

environments.

3. Encouraging inclusion in employment, education, and public life – ensuring that accessibility is treated as a baseline requirement rather than an optional accommodation.
4. Improving access to justice – strengthening protections from harassment and ensuring justice institutions are accessible and inclusive.
5. Reviewing exemptions – to ensure they remain narrow, transparent, and consistent with the Act’s purpose.
6. Modernising the DDA – through stronger Disability Action Plans, clearer compliance with the Disability Standards, and national consistency.
7. Further options for reform – ensuring the DDA remains flexible, future-ready, and aligned with technological and social change.

BindiMaps’ perspective is grounded in practical experience, human rights principles, and the lived experience of people with disability. We believe that accessibility must extend beyond the physical environment to include digital and informational access, and that equality is best achieved when inclusion is built into systems from the start. Through this submission, we offer constructive, evidence-based recommendations to help shape a DDA that delivers lasting accessibility, safety, and independence for all people with disability.

1. Updating understandings of disability and disability

discrimination

Overview

BindiMaps supports a contemporary and inclusive definition of disability that recognises the diversity, strengths, and experiences of people with disability, as well as the social and environmental factors that shape accessibility. The current definition, developed more than thirty years ago, reflects a medical model focused on impairment rather than participation. Updating the definition provides an opportunity to align the Act with the social and human rights models of disability, which focus on removing barriers and enabling full inclusion in society.

A modernised definition should align with Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), ensuring that accessibility is understood to include access to information, communication, and digital environments, not only physical infrastructure.

Definition of disability

The definition of disability should reflect the lived experience of people with disability and use respectful, contemporary language. It should explicitly recognise the full spectrum of disability, including sensory, cognitive, psychosocial, and neurodiverse conditions, as well as temporary or fluctuating impairments. The focus should be on how environments, systems, and attitudes can create disadvantage, rather than on impairment itself.

Accessibility must be understood in its broadest sense - covering access to communication, digital information, and navigation as integral to participation. This will ensure that the Act keeps pace with contemporary life, where digital and physical spaces are deeply interconnected.

Factors to consider in developing a new definition

In developing a new definition, attention should be given to the social model of disability, intersectionality, and flexibility for future understanding of disability. Language should avoid medicalised or deficit framing and instead promote equality and inclusion. The definition should also ensure that accessibility encompasses communication, technology, and information access, which are now essential to education, work, and community life.

Addressing intersectionality

The DDA should expressly recognise that discrimination can arise from multiple or combined protected attributes, including race, gender, age, culture, or language, as well as from multiple disabilities. Intersectionality should be reflected in the objects of the Act and in its interpretive provisions so that decision-makers consider how these factors interact.

Guidance from the Australian Human Rights Commission should promote inclusive consultation and design practices that take account of cultural, linguistic, and gender diversity. Recognising intersectionality will help ensure that reforms respond to the lived experience of discrimination and promote inclusive participation for all people with disability.

Definition of direct discrimination

BindiMaps supports simplifying the definition of direct discrimination by adopting a detriment test, which asks whether a person has been treated unfavourably because of disability. This approach is clearer and more practical than the existing comparator test, which requires comparing the treatment of a person with disability to that of a hypothetical person without disability. The detriment test is easier for individuals and organisations to apply, focuses on real-world impact, and aligns with the DDA’s purpose of preventing disadvantage rather than proving intent.

Definition of indirect discrimination

The definition of indirect discrimination should be simplified to focus on whether a condition, requirement, or practice disproportionately disadvantages people with disability and cannot be justified as legitimate and proportionate. Simplified language would make the law easier to understand and apply, helping both individuals and duty holders to identify and resolve barriers.

BindiMaps supports replacing the current “reasonableness” element with a legitimate and proportionate test, consistent with international best practice. This would provide a clearer and more consistent balance between organisational needs and individual rights. Removing the overly technical wording, such as “does not or would not comply, or is not able or would not be able to comply”, would also improve accessibility and comprehension of the law.

Burden of proof

The DDA should adopt a fairer, two-stage approach to the burden of proof, similar to the model used in the United Kingdom’s Equality Act 2010. Under this approach, once a complainant establishes facts from which discrimination could reasonably be inferred, the burden shifts to the respondent to show that discrimination did not occur. This balances the process by recognising that much of the evidence needed to prove discrimination is held by employers or service providers. It would also encourage better record-keeping, transparency, and proactive compliance.

Consistency with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities

BindiMaps supports including the CRPD within the objects of the Act and requiring the Act to be interpreted in a way that is beneficial to people with disability. This would ensure that decision-makers give effect to Australia’s international human rights obligations and interpret the DDA consistently with its purpose of promoting equality, dignity, and participation.

Including the CRPD in both the objects and interpretive provisions would embed a rights-based framework for the DDA and make clear that accessibility, inclusion, and independent living are central to its operation.

Summary

Updating the definitions and interpretive framework of the DDA is essential to ensure that it reflects current understandings of disability and discrimination. Simplifying key provisions, recognising intersectionality, adopting fairer evidentiary processes, and aligning the Act with the CRPD will make the DDA more effective, fair, and future-ready. These changes will help ensure that accessibility, whether physical, digital, or informational, is recognised as a foundation for equal participation in Australian life.

2. Positive duty to eliminate discrimination

Overview

BindiMaps supports the introduction of a positive duty in the Disability Discrimination Act that would require organisations to take active steps to prevent discrimination before it occurs. This reform would shift the Act from a reactive model based on individual complaints to a proactive approach centred on prevention and inclusion.

A positive duty would encourage early identification and removal of barriers, ensuring that accessibility and inclusion are embedded in planning, procurement, and service delivery. It would also promote consistency across sectors, helping to create environments where accessibility is considered a core responsibility rather than an optional practice.

Scope of the duty

The positive duty in the Disability Discrimination Act should apply to all duty holders covered by the Act, including public sector agencies, private businesses, education providers, transport operators, and not-for-profit organisations. A consistent approach across sectors will help ensure that people with disability can expect the same level of access and inclusion regardless of where they study, work, or engage with services.

Application of the duty should be proportionate to the size and nature of each organisation, recognising that smaller entities may meet the requirement in simpler or more flexible ways. The duty should also extend to contractors and outsourced service arrangements, with lead organisations responsible for ensuring accessibility through procurement and contract management.

Lessons from other positive duties

Lessons from the operation of the positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act demonstrate the value of clear expectations, practical guidance, and proportionality. A similar model under the Disability Discrimination Act should focus on prevention, leadership accountability, consultation, and continuous improvement.

The Australian Human Rights Commission should have an educative and supportive role, producing model policies, templates, and sector-specific examples that show how the duty can be met in practice. Experience from the Sex Discrimination Act also highlights the importance of leadership by government agencies and the use of procurement frameworks to drive consistent practice across industries and supply chains.

Costs and impacts

The main costs of meeting a positive duty would arise during initial implementation, including the cost of accessibility audits, training, policy updates, and improvements to physical, digital, and communication systems. For most organisations, these are incremental rather than transformational changes, often aligning with existing safety, diversity, or quality frameworks.

Over time, benefits are likely to outweigh costs. A proactive approach reduces the number of complaints, improves clarity around compliance, strengthens workforce participation, and enhances reputation and community trust. To support implementation, the government should provide practical guidance, allow phased timelines, and promote proportional compliance expectations for small and medium-sized organisations.

Exceptions and limits

The positive duty should include only narrow and clearly defined exceptions that do not weaken its intent. Exceptions may be appropriate where compliance would directly conflict with another legal obligation, where genuine security restrictions apply, or where temporary impracticability arises during emergencies or exceptional circumstances.

When an organisation relies on an exception, it should be required to show that it has considered alternatives, consulted with people with disability, and developed a plan to achieve compliance as soon as possible. Proportionality should remain the primary mechanism for managing differing capacities among duty holders, ensuring fairness while maintaining the duty’s effectiveness.

Summary

Introducing a positive duty would represent a major step toward preventing discrimination before it occurs. A clear, proportionate, and well-supported framework would help embed accessibility and inclusion into everyday decision-making across all sectors. By learning from existing positive duties and providing strong guidance, Australia can implement a model that improves accountability, reduces barriers, and advances the purpose of the Disability Discrimination Act.

3. Encouraging inclusion of people with disability in

employment, education and other areas of public life

Overview

BindiMaps supports reforms that strengthen inclusion and clarify the obligations of organisations to make adjustments that enable people with disability to participate fully in employment, education, and public life. Although the Disability Discrimination Act has improved equality, barriers remain where accessibility is treated as optional or reactive rather than integral to how systems are designed and delivered.

Creating clearer, stand-alone duties and improving transparency in decision-making would help make inclusion an expected and consistent practice. Consultation, proactive planning, and fairer assessment processes are essential to achieving the intent of the Act.

Duty to provide adjustments

The creation of a stand-alone duty to provide adjustments would make rights and responsibilities clearer for both people with disability and duty holders. It would confirm that making adjustments is a core part of compliance rather than a discretionary step taken only when requested. A dedicated duty would reduce ambiguity, improve consistency across sectors, and encourage early identification of barriers.

The scope of the duty to provide adjustments should extend beyond the existing areas of public life covered by the Act. Equal participation increasingly depends on access to digital information, communication platforms, and technology-enabled environments. Extending the duty would ensure that accessibility obligations apply wherever services are delivered, including online and hybrid settings.

Removing the word “reasonable” from the term “reasonable adjustments” would simplify the law without creating unintended consequences. The requirement that adjustments be made unless doing so causes unjustifiable hardship already provides an appropriate safeguard. Simplifying the language would help focus the discussion on how inclusion can be achieved rather than whether an adjustment is “reasonable.”

Unjustifiable hardship

BindiMaps supports the Disability Royal Commission’s recommendation to amend the unjustifiable hardship provision to improve fairness and transparency. The assessment of hardship should include clear factors such as the nature and extent of the benefit for people with disability, the availability of alternatives, consultation undertaken, and the organisation’s overall resources and priorities.

Organisations should be required to demonstrate that they have explored all feasible options before claiming hardship and to provide transparent reasoning where hardship is found. This would promote accountability and ensure that the exception does not undermine the purpose of the Act.

Employment and inherent requirements

Amending the Act to emphasise consultation between employers and employees before employment decisions are made would improve outcomes for both parties. Early discussion about necessary adjustments and how they can be achieved helps identify practical solutions, prevents misunderstandings, and supports retention of skilled workers.

The Act should also encourage joint assessment of inherent requirements, ensuring that employers consider how reasonable adjustments, flexible arrangements, or assistive technologies could enable a person to perform a role. Including these expectations in guidance or regulations would help employers apply them consistently.

Additional factors should be added to the definition of inherent requirements to require consideration of the effectiveness of available adjustments and consultation with the individual. This would ensure that employment decisions are evidence-based and not based on assumptions about capacity.

Education and exclusionary discipline

The concepts of exclusion and exclusionary discipline should be defined in the DDA to provide clarity and consistency across jurisdictions. Suspension, exclusion, or expulsion based on disability should be unlawful unless all reasonable adjustments and supports have been considered. Defining these terms would guide education providers and help ensure fair and transparent decision-making.

Limited exceptions may be appropriate where inclusion poses a genuine and demonstrable risk to safety or the rights of others. In such cases, education providers should be required to show that they considered alternatives, consulted with the student and their family, and developed a plan for reintegration.

National consistency could be achieved by harmonising the DDA with best-practice state and territory provisions that emphasise positive behaviour support, consultation, and documentation of adjustments. This would reduce confusion and strengthen protection for students with disability.

In higher education and vocational education and training, a tailored approach may be appropriate to reflect the nature of adult learning environments. Institutions should be required to take all reasonable steps to support participation, including accessible facilities, flexible learning options, and clear communication processes. Any exclusion should occur only after genuine consultation and consideration of all available supports.

Summary

Strengthening the duty to provide adjustments, clarifying unjustifiable hardship, improving consultation in employment, and addressing exclusionary practices in education would make the Disability Discrimination Act clearer, fairer, and more effective. Embedding these expectations in law would help shift accessibility from a reactive process to a shared responsibility, ensuring that all people with disability can participate equally in work, study, and public life.

4. Improving access to justice

Overview

BindiMaps supports reforms that strengthen protection for people with disability from harassment, offensive behaviour, and vilification, and that clarify the coverage of policing and justice services under the Disability Discrimination Act. Equal access to justice depends not only on legal protections but also on the accessibility of information, facilities, and processes within justice systems.

Although BindiMaps is not directly involved in law enforcement, our experience improving accessibility in civic and justice environments such as courts and parliamentary buildings demonstrates how inclusive design can remove barriers to participation and promote fairness and safety for all.

Offensive behaviour and harassment

The Disability Discrimination Act should make offensive behaviour and harassment on the grounds of disability unlawful in both physical and online spaces. Clear provisions would protect people from conduct that demeans, intimidates, or humiliates, regardless of intent. These protections should apply consistently across all public contexts and be supported by education and guidance that encourage early prevention and respectful conduct.

Offensive behaviour and harassment should be defined in line with existing human rights frameworks, focusing on the impact of the behaviour rather than intent. Harassment should include unwanted conduct related to disability that creates a hostile, intimidating, or degrading environment. The definition should also cover online platforms, where many people with disability face discrimination or abuse.

Exemptions and vilification protections

There should be no broad exemptions for offensive behaviour or harassment. Limited exemptions may be appropriate to protect genuine artistic, academic, or public interest expression, but these should be narrowly defined and subject to a clear public interest test. The focus of any reform should remain on balancing freedom of expression with the right to dignity, safety, and inclusion.

Protections against the vilification of people with disability currently are inconsistent across jurisdictions. Amending the DDA to include a clear national prohibition on disability vilification would close this gap and create uniform protection. Aligning the DDA with existing state and territory frameworks would make enforcement clearer and ensure that online environments are equally covered.

Coverage of policing and justice

The DDA should explicitly confirm that all policing and justice services are covered by its protections, including law enforcement, investigation, detention, and community

engagement. This would provide certainty that people with disability have the same rights and protections in all interactions with police and justice institutions.

Coverage should extend to communication and information access, ensuring that facilities, procedures, and systems used by police and courts are accessible to all. This would improve safety, understanding, and trust between people with disability and justice agencies.

There should be no broad exclusions from the application of the DDA in policing or justice contexts. Limited exemptions should apply only where compliance would directly conflict with other legal obligations, such as national security or immediate risk to life. In all other cases, the principles of accessibility, fairness, and respect should apply equally.

Summary

Stronger protections against offensive behaviour, harassment, and vilification, combined with explicit coverage of policing and justice services, would make the DDA more consistent and effective. These changes would ensure that people with disability are protected from harm and discrimination across all public settings, and that justice systems are accessible, safe, and responsive. By embedding accessibility and respect into the design and operation of justice institutions, Australia can help realise the DDA’s goal of equal participation and dignity for all.

5. Exemptions

Overview

BindiMaps recognises that exemptions play an important role in balancing individual rights with broader policy and operational considerations. However, exemptions should always be the minimum necessary to achieve their intended purpose and should operate transparently and accountably. The Disability Discrimination Act has been in place for over 30 years, and it is appropriate to review whether existing permanent and temporary exemptions remain justified in their current form.

Permanent exemptions

Some permanent exemptions in the Disability Discrimination Act could be reviewed and, where possible, narrowed to ensure they are the minimum required to achieve legitimate policy outcomes. Exemptions should not be used to limit rights more broadly than intended, and their ongoing necessity should be periodically tested against current human rights standards.

Introducing a review mechanism would help ensure that exemptions remain justified, relevant, and consistent with the DDA’s purpose of eliminating discrimination. Where practical, alternative measures that achieve the same objectives without limiting rights should be preferred.

Special measures

The Australian Human Rights Commission should be granted the power to issue special measures certificates. The Commission is well placed to assess whether proposed measures genuinely advance equality for people with disability and are consistent with the intent of the DDA. Granting this power would also promote consistency and flexibility in decision-making.

Clear criteria and transparency requirements should accompany this power, including regular reporting and public access to decisions. This would help maintain public confidence and support the identification of effective practices that advance inclusion.

A definition of “special measures” should be added to the Act to provide clarity about when positive action is lawful and desirable. The definition should align with international human rights principles and make clear that special measures are designed to achieve substantive equality rather than to create permanent exceptions. Guidance and examples should be provided to assist organisations in applying this concept appropriately.

Temporary exemptions

Including a clear definition of “temporary exemptions” in the Act would improve transparency and consistency. The definition should specify that temporary exemptions are time-limited, subject to review, and granted only when necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose. This

would ensure that temporary exemptions are not used as a substitute for compliance and that organisations remain focused on achieving accessibility outcomes.

The legislative process for granting temporary exemptions could also be strengthened. Criteria for approval should be clearly stated, and consultation with people with disability should be required before exemptions are granted. The Australian Human Rights Commission should publish its decisions and reasoning to promote transparency and understanding. Review or appeal rights could also be considered to further enhance accountability.

Summary

Exemptions should be narrow, transparent, and used only when essential to achieving legitimate objectives. Adding clear definitions for special measures and temporary exemptions, providing the Commission with the power to issue certificates, and strengthening review and reporting processes would help maintain confidence in the system. These changes would ensure that exemptions remain consistent with the DDA’s central goal of promoting equality and inclusion for all people with disability.

6. Modernising the Disability Discrimination Act

Overview

BindiMaps supports the modernisation of the DDA to reflect changes in technology, practice, and community expectations. The Act has been in place for over 30 years, and while its principles remain sound, its mechanisms need to better capture contemporary understandings of accessibility, information access, and digital inclusion.

Modernisation provides an opportunity to strengthen accountability through improved Disability Action Plans, clearer guidance on compliance with the Disability Standards, and recognition that accessibility now extends beyond physical infrastructure to digital environments.

Disability Action Plans

BindiMaps supports requiring Disability Action Plans (DAPs) to meet minimum content and quality standards. DAPs are most effective when they move beyond high-level commitments and include specific, measurable actions and timelines for improving accessibility.

We recommend that future guidance on DAPs:

• explicitly include digital accessibility and access to information as core components
• require organisations to report publicly on progress against their plans
• encourage consultation with people with disability and disability representative organisations throughout development and implementation.

A consistent national approach to DAPs, supported by model templates and examples, would assist organisations of all sizes to meet their obligations and share effective practices.

Enforcement of the Disability Standards

BindiMaps supports stronger compliance, monitoring, and reporting mechanisms for the Disability Standards, particularly those relating to Access to Premises, Education, and Public Transport.

Improving enforcement would help ensure that accessibility outcomes are consistent across sectors and jurisdictions. The review should consider:

• providing the Australian Human Rights Commission with clearer powers to monitor compliance and publish findings
• requiring periodic self-reporting by organisations as part of their DAPs

• ensuring that the Standards remain responsive to emerging technologies and design practices.

Assistance animals

Although BindiMaps does not have direct involvement in this area, we support clearer, nationally consistent definitions and standards for assistance animals. Clarity around evidence, training, and hygiene requirements would help both people with disability and organisations understand their rights and obligations.

Summary

Modernising the DDA is essential to ensure it remains relevant to current and future accessibility needs. Strengthened Disability Action Plans, improved enforcement of the Disability Standards, and clearer guidance around accessibility will support a more consistent, transparent, and future-ready framework. Recognising digital accessibility as an integral part of this modernisation will ensure that the DDA continues to protect and empower people with disability in all environments.

7. Further options for reform

Overview

BindiMaps supports continuous improvement of the Disability Discrimination Act so that it remains clear, effective, and responsive to changing expectations and technologies. The DDA has provided a strong foundation for the protection of rights, but modernisation should ensure it operates proactively and consistently with contemporary anti-discrimination frameworks across Australia and internationally.

This part of the review provides an opportunity to consider lessons from other legislation, strengthen education and guidance for duty holders, and embed mechanisms that keep the Act fit for purpose into the future.

Lessons from other legislation

Provisions from other anti-discrimination laws provide useful models for strengthening the DDA. The positive duty model introduced under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) demonstrates how prevention-based obligations can drive systemic cultural change and encourage early action to eliminate discrimination. Similar proactive approaches are found in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) and the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), which promote responsibility for inclusive practice across organisations.

Internationally, the UK Equality Act 2010 provides a helpful precedent for sharing the burden of proof between complainants and respondents, making it easier for people to seek redress while maintaining fairness for organisations. Drawing on these examples would align the DDA with best-practice human rights frameworks and strengthen its focus on prevention, accountability, and education.

Guidance and support for implementation

Clear and accessible guidance materials are essential for ensuring that the DDA is well understood and effectively implemented. The Australian Human Rights Commission could provide practical resources such as model policies, checklists, and self-assessment tools that outline how to comply with the DDA, Disability Standards, and Disability Action Plans.

Guidance should include examples tailored to different sectors and organisation sizes, highlighting how accessibility can be achieved across physical, digital, and communication environments. All materials should be published in accessible formats and multiple languages, ensuring they can be used widely across government, business, and community organisations.

Keeping the Act fit for purpose

To remain effective, the DDA should be designed to adapt automatically to new technologies and changing social contexts. Embedding principles of universal design, digital accessibility, and inclusive communication would help ensure that future innovations enhance rather than hinder participation.

Regular review of the Act, supported by ongoing consultation with people with disability, would allow it to evolve with community expectations. The Australian Human Rights Commission could play a leadership role in monitoring trends, issuing guidance on emerging accessibility issues, and coordinating education programs that promote inclusive practice.

Other considerations

The review could also strengthen the accessibility of the Act itself by improving the clarity and consistency of its language and structure. Plain-language drafting and consistent terminology would make the DDA easier to understand and apply.

Improved data collection and reporting mechanisms could help track progress and inform policy development. Ensuring that digital accessibility and information access remain central to all reforms will be critical to achieving the DDA’s purpose of full participation, equality, and inclusion for people with disability.

Summary

Strengthening the DDA through alignment with best-practice legislation, improved guidance for duty holders, and a focus on future-proofing will ensure it continues to deliver real outcomes for people with disability. Embedding flexibility, digital inclusion, and regular review will help the Act stay relevant and effective in protecting rights and promoting accessibility across all areas of public life.

Conclusion

BindiMaps welcomes the Australian Government’s review of the Disability Discrimination Act as an important opportunity to strengthen and modernise Australia’s legislative framework for equality. The DDA has provided a vital foundation for protecting the rights of people with disability, but the way people live, work, learn, and move through the world has changed significantly since its introduction more than 30 years ago. This review offers the chance to ensure the Act reflects those changes and remains fit for purpose in a digital, connected, and inclusive society.

Through our work with people with lived experience of disability, and with partners across education, transport, health, justice, and the cultural sector, BindiMaps has seen the transformative effect that accessibility and inclusive design can have. Independence, safety, and confidence in navigating public and digital spaces are not privileges — they are essential rights that enable full participation in Australian life.

Our submission supports reforms that:

• modernise the definition of disability and discrimination to reflect lived experience and contemporary understanding
• introduce a positive duty that embeds accessibility and inclusion into everyday decision-making
• strengthen the duty to provide adjustments and clarify obligations in employment, education, and public life
• improve access to justice through stronger protections and clearer coverage of policing and justice services
• ensure exemptions remain transparent, accountable, and limited to legitimate purposes
• modernise the DDA through stronger Disability Action Plans and clearer enforcement of the Disability Standards
• embed flexibility and digital accessibility so the Act remains relevant, effective, and future-ready.

BindiMaps appreciates the opportunity to contribute to this consultation and would welcome continued engagement with the Attorney-General’s Department and the Australian Human Rights Commission as reforms progress. We are committed to supporting a Disability Discrimination Act that not only protects rights but actively builds an inclusive Australia, one where every person can move, connect, and participate freely and confidently.