TOGETHER …
ADVOCATING FOR
ALL AUTISTIC PEOPLE
The Autistic Self Advocacy
Network Australia & New Zealand
www.asan-aunz.org
Attorney-General’s Department
3-5 National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 Australia
Friday 24 October 2025
Dear Review Team,
Submission to the Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
On behalf of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network of Australia and New Zealand (ASAN AUNZ), we are pleased to provide this submission to the Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA).
ASAN AUNZ is an independent, Autistic-led organisation advocating for the rights, inclusion, and self-determination of Autistic people across Australia and New Zealand. Through systemic policy work, community education, and the development of practical self-advocacy tools, we work to ensure that Autistic voices are represented in the design of laws and systems that affect our lives.
We welcome this opportunity to contribute to modernising the DDA to genuinely uphold equality and dignity for all people with disability. The Disability Royal Commission made clear the current Act no longer meets community needs. Reform must provide proactive inclusion, aligned with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
Our submission focuses on reforms to improve outcomes for Autistic people, including definitions, positive and adjustment duties, intersectionality, justice, and CRPD principles. ASAN AUNZ would welcome an opportunity to participate in future consultation or supporting legislative drafting and implementation.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important work.
Kind regards
redacted: s22
Cheryl Koch she/her redacted: s22
Chair
redacted: s22
redacted: s22
Deputy Chair
redacted: s22
Submission on the Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
From the Autistic Self Advocacy Network of Australia & New Zealand (ASAN AUNZ)
Introduction
The Autistic Self Advocacy Network of Australia and New Zealand (ASAN AUNZ) welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Australian Government’s review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA).
Who We Are
ASAN AUNZ is an independent, autistic-led organisation run by and for Autistic people. We advocate for the rights, inclusion, and self-determination of Autistic people across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Our work includes systemic policy advocacy, community education, and practical tools for self-advocacy.
Why This Review Matters
This review, prompted by the findings of the Disability Royal Commission (DRC), is a vital opportunity to modernise the DDA so it aligns with contemporary human rights standards and neurodivergent realities. The DRC found that the DDA is outdated and no longer fit for purpose, citing narrow legal interpretations, limited coverage, and inadequate protection from discrimination. Autistic people experience these failures acutely, particularly in employment, education, access to community.
Our Focus
This submission highlights key reform areas most relevant to Autistic people and others with neurodivergent or fluctuating disabilities. Our goal is for the DDA to genuinely reflect Autistic-led perspectives, address systemic ableism, and move beyond reactive compliance to proactive equality. A summary of our recommendations is as follows:
Modernise the definition of disability - Remove medicalised/derogatory terms and explicitly recognise neurodivergence and fluctuating/episodic conditions; align with CRPD Article 1 and the social model of disability.
Page 2 of 19 asan_aunz_submission_disability_discrimination_act_au_2025
Introduce a positive duty to eliminate discrimination - Require duty-holders across all settings to take reasonable and proportionate preventive steps, monitored and enforceable by the AHRC, supported by co-designed guidance.
Create a standalone duty to provide adjustments - Make it unlawful to fail/refuse adjustments unless doing so would cause unjustifiable hardship; apply across employment, education, goods/services and public life; explicitly include sensory, communication and cognitive accommodations and remove ambiguity around “reasonableness.”
Recognise intersectional discrimination - Enable multi-ground complaints, add an interpretive clause on intersectionality, adopt an unfavourable-treatment test (rather than strict comparators), and co-design guidance with First Nations, gender, CALD and LGBTIQA+ disability groups.
Tighten the unjustifiable hardship defence - Amend s11 to require consultation and exploration of alternative solutions, place the burden of proof on respondents, require documented reasons/evidence, and clarify that vague “detriment to others” or prejudice cannot justify refusal.
Prohibit disability-based harassment and vilification - Add an 18C-style civil provision for offensive conduct and a separate vilification/incitement clause (including online), with good-faith exemptions for art, research and fair comment.
Improve access to justice and enforcement - Extend coverage to policing and criminal-justice interactions, reform costs (each party bears own costs except in frivolous cases); enable representative/systemic actions, fund legal assistance, and embed procedural accommodations consistent with CRPD Article 13.
Comprehensively modernise and align with the CRPD and Autistic-led insights - Update the Act’s objects to reference CRPD principles, affirm the social model, refresh standards (including digital/communication accessibility), and establish an ongoing co-design advisory mechanism to keep the Act responsive to emerging issues (e.g., algorithmic bias).
Page 3 of 19 asan_aunz_submission_disability_discrimination_act_au_2025
Discussion and Recommendations
The following section expands on our key recommendations, outlining the current issues, their impact on Autistic and people with disability, and the reforms needed to align the DDA with contemporary human rights standards. Together, these recommendations aim to move the DDA from reactive compliance toward proactive inclusion and equality in practice.
1. Updating the Definition of Disability (Autism & Fluctuating Conditions)
The DDA defines disability in narrow, medicalised terms such as “disorder,” “malfunction,” and “disturbance” ¹. This framing reflects outdated deficit thinking and positions disability as a problem within the person, rather than the result of inaccessible environments and systems. It does not reflect contemporary understandings of disability under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the Disability Royal Commission (DRC) found that the DDA is “no longer fit for purpose,” partly because its language fails to reflect evolving concepts of disability and inclusion ².
From an Autistic perspective, the definition of disability is both inaccurate and harmful. It reinforces stigma by describing natural cognitive and sensory differences as faults to be cured or managed. Autistic and neurodivergent people increasingly understand disability through a social and human rights lens, where barriers, not bodies, are disabling. The DDA should reflect this shift by recognising neurodivergence and fluctuating conditions as part of human diversity, rather than subsuming them under “mental disorder.” Doing so would align the law with neurodiversity-affirming and rights-based frameworks ³.
¹ Australian Government. (1992). Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).
² Disability Royal Commission. (2023). Final report: Volume 11—Disability rights and discrimination. Commonwealth of Australia.
³ Kapp, S. K., Gillespie-Lynch, K., Sherman, L. E., & Hutman, T. (2013). Deficit, difference, or both? Autism and neurodiversity. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 59-71. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028353.
Page 4 of 19 asan_aunz_submission_disability_discrimination_act_au_2025
Here, we note that neurodiversity is widely used but inconsistently defined, covering a broad and often under-studied set of neurodevelopmental differences (e.g., autism, ADHD, dyslexia). This conceptual ‘fuzziness’ makes it hard to translate rights into practice, research comparability, service access, and workplace or education adjustments all suffer, yet a rigid, diagnosis-only definition risks gatekeeping and over-medicalising identity ⁴. The DDA review is an opportunity to recognise neurodiversity as a legitimate identity category reflecting natural diversity of the human brain, and account for environmental and contextual mismatch, consistent with social and interactional models of disability ⁵.
Recommendation 1:
ASAN AUNZ recommends that the DDA’s definition of “disability” be modernised to reflect the social model of disability and the diversity of lived experience. This should include:
Removing medicalised and derogatory terms (“disorder,” “malfunction,” “disease”).
Explicitly recognising autism, neurodivergent, cognitive, and fluctuating conditions as disabilities protected under the Act, including adopting a definition of neurodiversity.
Clarifying that episodic or variable disabilities remain protected regardless of day-to-day presentation.
Ensuring alignment with CRPD Article 1, which defines disability as arising from the interaction between impairments and barriers to participation.
A modern, rights-based definition would make the DDA more inclusive, consistent with international obligations, and better able to protect Autistic and neurodivergent Australians from discrimination.
⁴ Botha, M. (2021). Autistic community connectedness as a predictor of mental health: The role of neurodiversity inclusion. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 727972. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.727972; Singer, J. (1999). Why can’t you be normal for once in your life? In M. Corker & S. French (Eds.), Disability discourse (pp. 59-67). Open University Press.
⁵ Armstrong, T. (2010). The power of neurodiversity: Unleashing the advantages of your differently wired brain. Da Capo Press.
⁶ Shakespeare, T. (2013). Disability rights and wrongs revisited (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Page 5 of 19 asan_aunz_submission_disability_discrimination_act_au_2025
2. Positive Duty to Eliminate Discrimination
Under the DDA, protection is mostly triggered after harm, when an individual lodges a complaint. This reactive system shifts enforcement onto people with disability, who the NDIS Review recognised as already overburdened with advocating for themselves within rigid systems ⁷. The DRC found the current framing of the DDA “places a heavy burden on individuals, who must prove discrimination case-by-case”, and called for systemic, preventive measures ⁸. As the Senate Select Committee on Autism observed, autistic people and their families “often face discrimination” and lack access to supports or recourse and the Committee’s recommendations explicitly call for autism-specific advocacy, clearer design obligations, and systemic accountability to relieve the burden on individuals ⁹.
A positive duty would transform this system. Instead of waiting for complaints, duty-holders, like employers, schools, service providers, governments, would be required to take reasonable and proportionate steps to identify and prevent discrimination in advance. For Autistic people, this means schools would review sensory and social environments before exclusion occurs, and workplaces would embed neurodiversity-affirming practices (flexible communication, quiet spaces, inclusive policies) as standard, not as ad-hoc adjustments. This shift would make inclusion proactive, not reactive, and reduce the constant self-advocacy burden Autistic people face.
Recommendation 2:
ASAN AUNZ strongly supports introducing a positive duty to eliminate disability discrimination, as recommended by the DRC (Recommendations 4.27–4.28). The duty should:
Apply broadly to all duty-holders under the DDA, not just workplaces.
⁷ NDIS Review Panel. (2023). Working together to deliver the NDIS: Final report of the Independent Review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Australian Government Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
⁸ Australian Government, Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final report: Volume 11—Disability rights and discrimination. Commonwealth of Australia.
⁹ Senate Select Committee on Autism. (2022). Services, support and life outcomes for autistic Australians [Parliamentary report]. Parliament of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au
Page 6 of 19 asan_aunz_submission_disability_discrimination_act_au_2025
Require “reasonable and proportionate” measures, scaled to an organisation’s size and capacity.
Be monitored and enforced by the AHRC, with powers to conduct compliance audits and issue notices.
Be supported by government-funded, co-designed guidance and sector-specific toolkits, particularly addressing digital and sensory accessibility.
Embedding a positive duty would align the DDA with Article 5 (Equality and Non-Discrimination) of the CRPD, which requires States to take “all appropriate steps to eliminate discrimination” ¹⁰. It would shift responsibility from individuals to society, ensuring that accessibility and inclusion are built in from the start, not fought for after harm.
3. Standalone Duty to Provide Adjustments (Including Sensory, Communication, and Cognitive)
The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) does not clearly establish a legal duty to make adjustments for people with disability. Instead, this obligation is implied within the definitions of direct and indirect discrimination and has been narrowly interpreted by courts. The DRC found that this framework leaves people with disability, especially Autistic people, without effective recourse, forcing them to carry the burden of proof and navigate complex, reactive legal processes.
For Autistic people, adjustments are often the difference between inclusion and exclusion. These adjustments are usually sensory, communication, or cognitive rather than physical, for example, access to quiet or low-sensory environments, flexible schedules, plain-language communication, alternative formats for demonstrating knowledge, and extra time to process information. Research shows that Autistic employees highly value accommodations that reduce sensory overload and allow flexible communication and scheduling ¹¹.
¹⁰ United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Treaty Series, 2515, 3. https://www.un.org
¹¹ de Vries, B. (2021). Autism and the right to a hypersensitivity-friendly workspace. Public Health Ethics, 14(3), 281-287. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phab021
Page 7 of 19 asan_aunz_submission_disability_discrimination_act_au_2025
Yet, many requests are refused due to misunderstanding or rigid policies. Deloitte’s 2024 survey found 74 % of requests are at least partially rejected (and 19 % fully denied) ¹². Without a clear, enforceable duty, these basic supports remain discretionary and inconsistently applied.
Recommendation 3:
ASAN AUNZ strongly supports DRC’s Recommendations 4.25 and 4.26 to establish a standalone duty to provide adjustments in the DDA. The reform should:
Create a direct provision stating it is unlawful to fail or refuse to make an adjustment for a person with disability unless it would cause unjustifiable hardship.
Apply broadly across all contexts, employment, education, goods and services, and public life.
Remove the word “reasonable” from reasonable adjustments, clarifying that all adjustments must be provided unless they impose unjustifiable hardship.
Explicitly recognise sensory, communication, and cognitive accommodations as part of the duty.
This approach would align the DDA with Article 5(3) of the CRPD, which defines denial of reasonable accommodation as discrimination ¹³. It would make the failure to accommodate a clear, actionable breach, simplifying the law, improving accountability, and giving Autistic individuals and people with disability practical protection.
¹² Deloitte Global. (2024). Disability Inclusion @ Work 2024: A global outlook. https://www.deloitte.com
¹³ United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Treaty Series, 2515, 3.
Page 8 of 19 asan_aunz_submission_disability_discrimination_act_au_2025
4. Intersectionality and Compounded Discrimination
Autistic people are not a ‘monolith’: we are women, men, non-binary, LGBTQIA+, First Nations, culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD), and may also have other disabilities. Many experience intersectional discrimination, where ableism combines with racism, sexism, homophobia, or other biases to create compounded disadvantage ¹⁴. Intersectional identities often shape access to education, employment, and justice. Autistic women are frequently misdiagnosed or dismissed in school and healthcare due to gendered stereotypes ¹⁵. Autistic people from CALD or migrant backgrounds may face communication barriers or cultural stigma that go unrecognised in mainstream systems ¹⁶. The law should reflect this complexity and make it easier to raise complaints based on combined experiences of discrimination.
To further complicate matters, Australia’s federal discrimination laws, including the DDA, remain siloed by attribute and cannot easily address these overlapping harms. For example, an Autistic woman who is discriminated against because of both her autism and gender may have to file separate complaints under the DDA and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. The DRC found that this fragmentation “fails to reflect lived experience” and increases barriers to justice ¹⁷. It also documented the disproportionate impact of ableism on First Nations people with disability, calling their overrepresentation in prisons a “national crisis.” These findings highlight the urgent need for reform to recognise and respond to compounded forms of discrimination.
¹⁴ Adams, D., Malone, S., Carroll, A., Colville, O., Breasley, J., Lawson, W., & Paynter, J. (2024, March). Appendix B: Intersectionality matters—Research review. In Autism CRC, Report on research, co-design and community engagement to inform the National Roadmap to Improve the Health and Mental Health of Autistic People, Autism CRC. https://www.health.gov.au
¹⁵ Moura, J. D. C., Leal, J., Cunha, J. F., Seabra, D., Torres, S., Rocha, T., Lopes, I., & Barata, B. (2023). Autism spectrum disorders — gender differences and the diagnosis dilemma [Abstract]. European Psychiatry, 66(S1), S726.
¹⁶ Papoudi, D., Jorgensen, C. R., Guldberg, K., & Meadan, H. (2020). Perceptions, experiences, and needs of parents of culturally and linguistically diverse children with autism: A scoping review. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 8(2), 195-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-020-00210-1.
¹⁷ Australian Government, Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final report: Volume 11 — Disability rights and discrimination. Commonwealth of Australia.
Page 9 of 19 asan_aunz_submission_disability_discrimination_act_au_2025
Recommendation 4:
ASAN AUNZ supports explicit recognition of intersectional discrimination within the DDA. We recommend:
Allowing multi-ground complaints: The DDA and its complaints process should allow a single claim to address discrimination arising from more than one protected attribute (for example, disability and gender together). This could be achieved through procedural reform or clearer guidance from the AHRC, ensuring people are not forced to separate interconnected experiences into multiple cases.
Defining intersectionality: Insert a clause or interpretive note affirming that discrimination may occur based on the interaction of two or more protected attributes. This approach, used in Tasmania ¹⁸ and the ACT ¹⁹, would guide courts and duty-holders to consider compounded disadvantage.
Reforming the comparator test: Replace the strict comparator model with an unfavourable treatment test, as used in Victoria ²⁰ and the ACT ²¹, to better capture complex bias and unconscious discrimination
Consultation and guidance: Work with intersectional advocacy groups to develop policy guidance and data frameworks reflecting diverse lived experiences.
Recognising intersectional discrimination would align the DDA with Article 5 of the UN CRPD and ensure that Autistic people who also experience racism, sexism, or other bias are not left behind. The law should reflect real lives, where multiple identities coexist and shape people’s access to equality.
¹⁸ Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas). https://www.legislation.tas.gov.au
¹⁹ Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT). https://www.legislation.act.gov.au
²⁰ Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic). https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au
²¹ Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT). https://www.legislation.act.gov.au
Page 10 of 19 asan_aunz_submission_disability_discrimination_act_au_2025
5. Unjustifiable Hardship - Tightening the Test and Burden of Proof
The concept of unjustifiable hardship in the DDA is meant to balance inclusion with practicality, allowing duty-holders to decline adjustments only where meeting a person’s needs would cause significant difficulty or expense. In practice, however, the defence is often invoked too readily and without adequate scrutiny. Duty-holders frequently claim hardship without consulting the person with disability or exploring alternative adjustments, and the evidentiary burden to challenge such claims often falls on the complainant. In addition, the DRC found inconsistency in how courts apply the test, with some decisions giving disproportionate weight to financial costs or speculative claims of “detriment to others” ²². These interpretations risk reinforcing ableist assumptions, for instance, that accommodating a disabled student might somehow harm their peers. The lack of explicit procedural rules about who must prove hardship, or what evidence is required, has created confusion and discouraged legitimate claims.
Autistic people frequently hear “it’s too hard” when requesting simple, low-cost adjustments such as changing lighting, allowing flexible schedules, or using alternative communication methods ²³. These refusals often stem from misunderstanding rather than genuine ‘hardship’. A more rigorous test would require duty-holders to meaningfully engage, document their reasoning, and demonstrate that all reasonable options were considered before claiming hardship.
Recommendation 5:
ASAN AUNZ supports the DRC’s Recommendation 4.32 and calls for the DDA to strengthen the unjustifiable hardship provisions by:
²² Australian Government, Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final report: Volume 11 — Disability rights and discrimination. Commonwealth of Australia.
²³ Davies, J., Cliffe, B., Tickle, A., & Goodall, K. (2022). Autistic adults’ views and experiences of requesting and receiving workplace adjustments in the UK. PLOS ONE, 17(8), e0272802. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272802
Page 11 of 19 asan_aunz_submission_disability_discrimination_act_au_2025
Requiring genuine consultation and exploration of alternatives: duty-holders must show they consulted the person with disability to understand their needs and considered all reasonable alternative adjustments before relying on hardship as a defence. These two factors, consultation and alternatives, should be added to s11 of the DDA, as recommended by the DRC.
Clarifying the burden of proof: the DDA should explicitly state that the respondent (duty-holder) bears the burden of proving unjustifiable hardship. Once a person establishes that an adjustment was needed and not provided, the onus should shift to the duty-holder to justify the refusal and produce supporting evidence. This would correct the current imbalance, where individuals rarely have access to financial or operational data needed to refute hardship claims.
Introducing a documentation requirement: duty-holders should be required to record the reasons for any hardship claim, including cost assessments, consultation notes, and alternatives considered. This documentation could be produced in disputes and reviewed by the AHRC, improving transparency and accountability.
Clarifying the “benefit/detriment” factor: guidance should clarify that generalised discomfort, inconvenience, or prejudice toward people with disability does not amount to a legitimate detriment. Claims that inclusion is “disruptive” should be supported by clear, objective evidence and weighed in light of human rights principles.
These reforms would ensure that unjustifiable hardship remains a safeguard for truly exceptional cases, not a routine escape clause. They would also align the DDA with Article 5(4) of the CRPD, which permits limited exceptions only when objectively and proportionately justified.
For Autistic people, tightening this provision would make a tangible difference, encouraging schools, employers, and services to problem-solve collaboratively rather than default to “too hard.” Inclusion should be the starting point, and hardship the rare exception, one that must be proven with evidence, not assumed through convenience.
Page 12 of 19 asan_aunz_submission_disability_discrimination_act_au_2025
6. Offensive Behaviour and Vilification: Curbing Ableist Hate
Unlike race or religion, disability is not comprehensively protected from hate speech or vilification under Australian federal law. The DDA only prohibits harassment in narrow contexts (such as education and employment) and does not clearly define harassment or cover public abuse. This leaves Autistic people and people with disability, exposed to ridicule, slurs, and hate online and in public spaces.
The DRC found that “some types of public abuse do not breach criminal law and are not always covered by discrimination law” ²⁴. As a result, ableist hate that would be unlawful if directed at someone’s race or religion remains legally permissible if aimed at disability. This gap has real-world consequences: ableist narratives, online trolling, and misinformation fuel stigma, fear, and social exclusion.
Autistic people are frequent targets of online abuse and misinformation campaigns ²⁵. These attacks contribute to anxiety, self-censorship, and withdrawal from public life ²⁶. While platforms such as the Online Safety Act 2021 address cyber-bullying, they do not specifically prohibit disability hate speech. Stronger legislative protection is needed to affirm that ableist hate is as unacceptable as racial or religious hate.
Recommendation 6:
ASAN AUNZ supports the DRC’s Recommendations 4.29 and 4.30 to establish civil prohibitions on disability-based harassment, offensive conduct, and vilification within the DDA.
²⁴ Australian Government, Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final report: Volume 11 — Disability rights and discrimination. Commonwealth of Australia.
²⁵ eSafety Commissioner. (n.d.). Encounters with online hate. https://www.esafety.gov.au; Heung, S., Hamilton, H., & Blackwell, A. (2025). Ignorance is not bliss: Designing personalized moderation to address ableist hate on social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21844.
²⁶ Liu, T.-L., Hsiao, R. C., Chou, W.-J., & Yen, C.-F. (2021). Social anxiety in victimization and perpetration of cyberbullying and traditional bullying in adolescents with autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(11), 5728.
Page 13 of 19 asan_aunz_submission_disability_discrimination_act_au_2025
We recommend two complementary provisions:
Offensive behaviour provision: Introduce a clause modelled on Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA) s18C, making it unlawful to do a public act that is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate a person or group because of disability. This should apply to spoken, written, graphic, and online material, with the reasonable person test reflecting the perspective of a reasonable person with disability.
Vilification (incitement) provision: Establish a separate clause prohibiting public acts that incite hatred, serious contempt, or severe ridicule of people with disability. This aligns with existing state laws (e.g., Victoria, Queensland, NSW) and would set a consistent national standard. The provision should also apply to online communications to ensure cross-jurisdictional coverage.
Both clauses should include exemptions, like RDA s18D, for artistic works, academic debate, and fair comment made reasonably and in good faith. The goal is not to silence discussion but to curb hate that causes demonstrable harm and perpetuates exclusion.
Embedding these provisions in the DDA would:
Close a major protection gap between disability and other protected attributes.
Provide Autistic and people with disability with clear recourse against public harassment and hate.
Send a strong national message that ableist abuse and misinformation have no place in Australian society.
These reforms reflect Australia’s obligations under the CRPD which guarantees the right to equality, dignity, and respect. They are an essential step toward dismantling systemic ableism and ensuring that Autistic and disabled Australians can participate safely and confidently in public life.
Page 14 of 19 asan_aunz_submission_disability_discrimination_act_au_2025
7. Improving Access to Justice and Legal Enforcement
A law is only as effective as the ability to enforce it. For many Autistic people, the DDA is inaccessible in practice. The current process; filing a complaint with the AHRC, attempting conciliation, and possibly proceeding to the Federal Court, is complex, intimidating, and costly. The risk of adverse costs if a case is lost deters most complainants, while court procedures often require legal representation that few can afford.
The DRC found that people with disability frequently distrust or avoid the justice system, citing fear, exhaustion, and lack of support. Many do not report discrimination at all. The DDA’s reach also has significant gaps, most notably, it does not clearly cover policing. Courts have held that police do not provide a “service” when carrying out their duties, leaving victims of discriminatory or violent treatment without a federal remedy This is unacceptable given the DRC’s evidence of widespread mistreatment of people with disability by police, including the misinterpretation of Autistic behaviour as aggression ²⁷.
For Autistic people, legal systems can be inaccessible both procedurally and psychologically ²⁸. Communication differences, sensory overwhelm, and power imbalances make complaints exhausting and retraumatising ²⁹. Many simply choose not to act, even when rights are breached. Access to justice must therefore include both substantive and procedural adjustments and processes that are neurodiversity-affirming and trauma-informed.
²⁷ Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final report. Australian Government. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au
²⁸ Goodall, E., & Durkin, J. (2020). Barriers to justice: The experiences of autistic people in the criminal justice system. Autistica.
²⁹ Botha, M., Hanlon, J., & Williams, G. L. (2023). “I don’t want to be fixed, I want to be understood”: Autistic adults’ perspectives on trauma and the need for trauma-informed care. Autism in Adulthood, 5(1), 37-47.
Page 15 of 19 asan_aunz_submission_disability_discrimination_act_au_2025
Recommendation 7:
ASAN AUNZ supports reforms to make justice under the DDA fairer, simpler, and more accessible:
Expand coverage to policing and criminal justice: implement DRC Recommendation 8.19 by clarifying that services provided by police officers are covered by the DDA. All interactions with police; reporting crimes, being questioned, or detained, should be subject to non-discrimination duties, including the obligation to provide reasonable adjustments such as communication aids or support persons. This change would restore confidence and ensure that disability rights apply in every part of the justice system.
Reform the complaints and litigation process, including:
- Reform costs: introduce a no-costs or each-party-bears-own-costs model for DDA cases, except where a complaint is clearly frivolous. This mirrors most state discrimination tribunals and would remove one of the biggest deterrents for complainants.
- Specialist support: increase funding for disability legal advocacy and community legal centres to assist with discrimination cases, ensuring access to advice and representation for people who cannot navigate the system alone.
Accessibility, awareness, and training, including:
- Provide accessible information about DDA rights in Easy Read, Auslan, and multilingual formats.
- Train justice professionals, including AHRC staff, lawyers, and judges, on neurodiversity and disability inclusion.
- Add a provision, or at minimum a statement in the DDA’s objects, aligning with CRPD Article 13 (Access to Justice): requiring procedural accommodations in legal proceedings, such as allowing support persons, plain-language communication, remote hearings, or sensory adjustments.
Page 16 of 19 asan_aunz_submission_disability_discrimination_act_au_2025
Improving access to justice is not only about process, but also about power. As one Autistic advocate told the Law Society Journal, “The system protects organisations more than it protects disabled people” 30. True equality requires shifting that balance. Expanding DDA coverage, reducing cost risks, and embedding accessibility will make rights enforceable, not just in theory.
8. Modernising the DDA: CRPD Alignment and Autistic-Led Perspectives
The DDA was written more than 30 years ago, long before the CRPD and the neurodiversity movement. While amended over time, it still reflects an older, individualised and reactive model of disability rights. Its reliance on complaints, absence of contemporary concepts such as digital accessibility and AI-driven discrimination all points to the need for reform.
Since Australia ratified the CRPD in 2008, governments have committed to principles of dignity, autonomy, inclusion, equality of opportunity, and accessibility. At the same time, Autistic and other disabled people have taken leadership in shaping how laws and policies should reflect lived experience. Autistic-led perspectives emphasise affirming neurodiversity, embedding co-design, and rejecting deficit-based or cure-focused approaches. The DDA review is a critical opportunity to align the Act with both CRPD principles and contemporary understandings of disability.
Modernisation must ensure that the DDA reflects how disability is experienced in 2025, not 1992. This means centring Autistic and disabled voices, adopting respectful language, and addressing barriers that are sensory, communicative, cognitive, digital, or systemic. Laws that fail to capture these realities risk entrenching exclusion rather than dismantling it.
Recommendation 8:
ASAN AUNZ supports a comprehensive modernisation of the DDA, ensuring it aligns with the CRPD and contemporary, Autistic-led insights. We recommend:
30 Law Society Journal. (2024). Autism myths and misinformation in a grey zone of legal ramifications. Law Society of NSW. https://lsj.com.au/articles/autism-myths-and-misinformation-in-a-grey-zone-of-legal-ramifications.
Embed CRPD principles in the DDA‘s objects and interpretation - Amend section 3 to explicitly reference the CRPD and key human-rights principles: inherent dignity, autonomy, full participation, accessibility, equality of opportunity, and respect for difference (including neurodiversity as part of human diversity). This will guide courts and policymakers to interpret the Act consistently with international obligations.
Affirm the social model of disability - Add a preamble or guiding clause recognising that disability results from interaction with barriers, and that the Act’s purpose is to remove those barriers. This shifts compliance from individual adjustments to systemic accessibility.
Use neurodiversity-affirming language and guidance - Government materials and the Act’s explanatory resources should reflect identity-first language (“Autistic people”), avoid pathologising terminology, and acknowledge phenomena such as sensory overload and masking. The AHRC guidance could include examples showing that requiring Autistic people to suppress stimming or eye-contact differences can constitute discrimination.
Advance rights-based reforms across key areas - Modernisation should align with CRPD Articles 24 (Education), 25 (Health), 27 (Work and Employment), and 9 (Accessibility). This includes tightening limits on school suspensions or exclusions, updating Disability Standards (education, transport, premises), and developing new ones, for example, digital and communication accessibility standards.
Ensure co-design and participation - Establish an ongoing advisory body of people with disability, including Autistic and neurodivergent representatives, to guide DDA implementation and respond to emerging issues such as algorithmic bias or AI-based discrimination. This fulfils CRPD Article 4(3) and ensures the Act remains responsive to lived experience.
Modernising the DDA is about more than legal drafting, it is about cultural transformation. A CRPD-aligned, Autistic-informed DDA would move Australia from managing disability to actively enabling inclusion. As disability advocate Annie Crowe noted, we must “look beyond outdated myths and address the systems that perpetuate them… designing policies that protect and include - not punish and exclude” 31.
31 Law Society Journal. (2024). Autism myths and misinformation in a grey zone of legal ramifications. Law Society of NSW. https://lsj.com.au/articles/autism-myths-and-misinformation-in-a-grey-zone-of-legal-ramifications.
Conclusion
ASAN AUNZ strongly supports modernising the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, so it works in practice for Autistic Australians and all people with disability. The Royal Commission laid bare the gap between the DDA’s promise and our lived reality. The reforms we’ve outlined close that gap: a contemporary definition that includes neurodivergence and fluctuating conditions; a positive duty to prevent discrimination; a standalone duty to provide adjustments (including sensory, communication and cognitive); recognition of intersectional discrimination; a tighter unjustifiable hardship test; clear offensive-behaviour and vilification provisions; improved access to justice; and full CRPD alignment with Autistic-led perspectives.
These are not technical tweaks, they change outcomes. They mean an Autistic student learns with the right supports, an Autistic worker gets adjustments as a matter of course, a non-speaking Autistic person is respected in police and court settings, and Autistic advocates can speak without being drowned out by hate. They shift the burden from individuals having to fight case-by-case to systems that include us by default.
The DRC has already given government a roadmap. We urge ambitious implementation of its recommendations, and prompt legislative action. With these reforms, the DDA can move from a reactive shield to a proactive tool for inclusion, advancing a society where Autistic people are not only protected from harm but are included, respected, and thriving as equal citizens.