NDIA Accountability Project

Review of the Disability Discrimination Act Submission to the Attorney-General’s Department

‹ PrevPage 1 of 31 · Source p. 1Next ›

Review of the Disability Discrimination Act

Submission to the Attorney-General’s Department

Acknowledgements

Inclusion Australia pays our respects to the Traditional Owners of the lands on which this submission was written and throughout Australia. We recognise their continuing connections to land, waters and skies and pay our respects to Elders past and present.

We acknowledge and thank all the people with an intellectual disability and families who shared their stories and ideas in this submission. This submission has been possible because of your generosity in sharing your experiences.

We also recognise and stand in solidarity with self-advocates who have courageously told their stories and worked hard over many years for equality and human rights for all.

Contents

About Inclusion Australia

Inclusion Australia (IA) is the national peak organisation representing the rights and interests of Australians with an intellectual disability and their families. Founded more than 70 years ago in 1954, our mission is to work with people with an intellectual disability, their families and our members to make positive change.

Our strength is in our national representation and our connection to our community. We have a member organisation in every state and territory across Australia:

  • ACT Down Syndrome and Intellectual Disability (ACT DSID)
  • Council for Intellectual Disability (NSW)
  • Developmental Disability WA (DDWA)
  • Inclusion Northern Territory (Inclusion NT)
  • Parent to Parent (P2P, Queensland)
  • South Australian Council on Intellectual Disability (SACID)
  • Speak Out Advocacy (Tasmania)
  • Victorian Advocacy League for Individuals with Disability (VALID).

Our systemic advocacy draws on the deep, collective experience of our members, who have spent decades advancing the rights of people with intellectual disability and their families in their jurisdictions. Their expertise in peer support, individual and systemic advocacy, and community engagement—combined with their trusted, long-standing relationships with their communities—ensures that the voices of people with intellectual disability are heard and acted on.

About this submission

We welcome the opportunity to provide input into the review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA). This review is a critical step in responding to the findings of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (the Disability Royal Commission) and ensure the DDA can contribute effectively to the elimination of discrimination for all Australians with disability.

In August and September 2025, Inclusion Australia and its member organisations conducted consultations about the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) with people with an intellectual disability. The table below shows the total participants who took part in consultation as part of the development of this submission. In addition, Inclusion Australia consulted 5 members of the Complex Needs Reference Group, composed of family members of people with an intellectual disability who have high communication and support needs.

Location Organiser People with an intellectual disability
National Inclusion Australia Policy Reference Group (PRG) redacted: s47F - number
ACT ACT Down Syndrome and Intellectual Disability (ACT DSID) 6
NSW Council on Intellectual Disability (CID) 7
QLD Parent to Parent (P2P) 7
SA South Australian Council on Intellectual Disability (SACID) 8
TAS Speak Out 11
WA Developmental Disability WA 6
VIC Victorian Advocacy League for Individuals with Disability (VALID) 7
Total 63

These consultations utilised the first eight questions in the consultation’s Easy Read materials:

  1. How do you think the government could explain ‘disability’ in the Act?
  2. How do you think the government could explain ‘discrimination’ in the Act?
  3. What rules could the government include in the Act to make sure organisations stop discrimination from happening?
  4. What rules could the government include in the Act to make sure organisations include people with disability?
  5. What rules could the government make to better protect people with disability from offensive behaviour?
  6. What should the government tell police about how to treat people with disability?
  7. When should people with disability be allowed to be treated differently?
  8. How can the government do things to stop discrimination from happening?

These consultations were central to shaping our submission. The views shared by people with an intellectual disability and family members directly informed our analysis and recommendations, and their feedback helped us identify the key priorities for change. We have included quotes throughout the submission to highlight their voices and show how their input guided our thinking. It is crucial that Government continues to engage with the people the law is designed to protect to ensure the DDA is more effective, accessible, and responsive to their experiences.

Our recommendations

1. Accessibility and communication of legislative changes

a. Ensure timely communication of legislative changes to the disability community, including in Easy Read, visual and other accessible formats and languages. b. Create education programs and mandated training for duty holders to understand positive duty and legislative obligations. c. Work with the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to improve accessibility of complaint pathways. d. Invest in independent advocacy support.

2. A stronger role for the AHRC

a. Provide a substantial increase in funding to the AHRC - based on the level of need in the community, which should be determined through targeted consultation with the AHRC in partnership with the disability sector - for systemic inquiries, education, and accessible complaint handling and any new powers brought about by changes to legislation, per recommendations 2b and c. b. Enable the AHRC to issue compliance notices, civil penalties, and accept enforceable undertakings, particularly in relation to a positive duty, per recommendation 5c. c. Enable the AHRC to monitor and publicly report on systemic discrimination trends.

3. Definition of Disability

a. Update DDA to reflect modern, social, and environmental understandings of disability, including aligning with the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). b. Include a definition of intersectionality and an explicit provision that a person can make a claim with two or more protective attributes. c. Ensure definition is inclusive, legally precise, and operationally workable for enforcement.

4. Comparator test and burden of proof

a. Remove comparator test and replace with an “unfavourable treatment or detriment” standard. b. Introduce a shifting burden of proof, where once unfavourable treatment is shown a respondent must prove it was not because of disability. c. Amend indirect discrimination to remove the reasonableness element, to be replaced with “legitimate and proportionate”.

5. Positive duty

a. Introduce a positive duty for all duty holders to identify and eliminate discrimination proactively by requiring anticipation and removal of barriers. b. Provide guidance and training for duty holders, co-designed with people with disability. c. Support positive duty with enforcement mechanisms, including compliance notices, enforceable undertakings and systemic investigations undertaken by the AHRC. d. Include legislated periodic reviews of positive duty to ensure ongoing effectiveness.

6. Employment

a. Amend the definition of “inherent requirements” with reference to the essential outcomes or purpose of a role, rather than fixed tasks, and clarify that tasks can be redistributed where this does not affect the core purpose of the role. b. Require employers to identify and document what is genuinely inherent to a role, and that this information must be provided in accessible formats to jobseekers with an intellectual disability. c. Strengthen employer duties to provide reasonable adjustments to apply at recruitment, job retention, progression and career development.

d. Embed consistent minimum protections to ensure people with disability are not excluded from work or training through disciplinary processes.

7. Education

a. Strengthen accountability for exclusionary discipline practices, including the conditions that must be met before and after these practices occur. b. Include and accurately define all forms of exclusionary practices used across education settings, including:

  • Academic exclusion
  • Informal exclusion
  • Physical and structural exclusion
  • Social and emotional exclusion, including punitive approaches to disability-related behaviours/dysregulation
  • Formal disciplinary exclusion such as suspension and expulsion
  • Use of restrictive practices.

8. Reasonable adjustments

a. Require that people with disability and, where appropriate, their family or informal supports are consulted about when and how a reasonable adjustment might be implemented and to explore the full range of alternative options. b. Ensure, when considering whether an adjustment would impose unjustifiable hardship, decision-makers are required to take into account:

  • the extent to which the person with disability and, where appropriate, their family were consulted; and
  • whether alternative adjustments were available that could reduce hardship for the duty holder while still supporting inclusion. c. Introduce a stand-alone legal duty to provide adjustments. d. Clarify in legislation that failure to make reasonable adjustments where unjustifiable hardship would not occur is unlawful.

9. Access to justice, including interaction with child protection systems

a. Amend section 4 of the DDA to include “services provided by police officers in the course of performing their duties and powers” within the definition of ‘services’, per recommendation 8.19 of the Disability Royal Commission.

  • This amendment should also make clear that the DDA applies to all law enforcement responsibilities across Federal, State and Territory jurisdictions. b. Introduce a statutory duty to ensure that the exercise of statutory functions and powers by policing, corrective services, and child protection agencies are subject to the DDA.

10. Vilification & Offensive Behaviour

a. Introduce stand-alone prohibitions on offensive behaviour and vilification. b. Align protections with Racial Discrimination Act 18C/18D exemptions. c. Include online conduct and social media platforms in definitions of public acts.

11. Exemptions

a. Remove the Migration Act exemption from Section 52 of the DDA.

  • We also endorse Welcoming Disability’s submission to the DDA Review in relation to the Migration Act exemption. b. Establish set timeframes for review of other exemptions at every 5 years.

12. Modernising the DDA

a. Require minimum standards and measurable commitments in disability action plans. b. Give AHRC authority to assess, provide feedback, and reject inadequate plans. c. Link action plans with compliance under Disability Standards.

d. Require duty holders to report publicly on implementation and outcomes. e. Ensure positive duty and standards integration reduce reliance on individual complaints.

Background

As the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (the Disability Royal Commission) has clearly demonstrated, a fully inclusive society is contingent on “the independence of people with disability and their right to live free from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation”. 1

It has been established through the thousands of testimonies of evidence given at public hearings, private sessions, community engagements, in submissions, and through its robust research program that inclusion is most evident where:

An individual is made welcome, where they feel welcome, where they know they belong, where they know they are safe, and where their voice is heard and acted upon… it is where people live free from poverty, in close personal relationships with others, where they have friends and advocates and where they are free to express their philosophical/religious beliefs, sexual and cultural identities, that people can live a quality life free from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. 2

At the same time, the Disability Royal Commission has firmly established that experiences of violence, abuse, neglect, and exploitation are frequently and disproportionately experienced by people with disability. There is also evidence that those experiences are more likely to (though do not solely) take place in segregated settings, separate from the community. 3

We also know that people with certain disability types are more likely than others to experience life in such settings. That cohort is predominately people with cognitive impairment, 4 including people with an intellectual disability. This is even more likely for people with very high support needs, including communication support needs. 5

A snapshot of evidence drawn from the findings of the Disability Royal Commission demonstrates the ways experiences of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation significantly impact people with an intellectual disability, as shown in the diagram below.

Lessons from the Disability Royal Commission

People with an intellectual disability are more likely to:

  • Live in a group home: Almost half of Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) participants have an intellectual disability as their primary disability (42%).
  • Suffer from financial hardship: Among people with disability, people with an intellectual disability are among the least likely to receive an income from a wage through employment and report higher rates of financial hardship.
  • Be a victim of violence and abuse: 67% of people with an intellectual disability have experienced violence since the age of 15. The rate is higher among women with an intellectual disability.
  • Be detained for longer periods if found unfit to stand trial: When a person with an intellectual disability does not have access to appropriate supports, they are likely to be detained for longer periods than had they been found guilty and sentenced accordingly, and are at risk of being detained indefinitely.
  • Be overprescribed psychotropic medications: In some cases, the number and dosage levels of psychotropic medications administered to people with an intellectual disability are so significant, they constitute abuse.
  • Have limited access to legal aid as victims of crime: People with an intellectual disability are likely to experience a range of barriers to access to justice, such as support to give evidence with proper legal representation.
  • Be unemployed, or work for subminimum wages: People with an intellectual disability are less likely to be employed full-time than other people with disability and are more likely to be employed in an Australian Disability Enterprise, with only 15% having a job in open employment on a full wage.
  • Rely on government payments as a primary source of income: 72% of people with an intellectual disability’s main source of income comes from a government pension or allowance, usually the Disability Support Pension.
  • Be overrepresented in the criminal justice system: People with an intellectual disability, especially First Nations people, are significantly overrepresented at all stages of the criminal justice system, from police contact and arrest, through to court processes and correctional settings.
  • Be subject to restrictive practices in response to ‘behaviours of concern’: People with disability are subject to the greatest use of restrictive practices in segregated settings such as group homes, where people with an intellectual disability are more likely to reside.
  • Experience seclusion and solitary confinement in youth detention and prisons: Isolation amounting to solitary confinement is over-used in criminal justice settings, especially youth detention, in which people with an intellectual disability are overrepresented.
  • Have limited access to quality healthcare: People with an intellectual disability experience significant barriers in accessing safe and quality healthcare, and experience higher mortality rates, increased incidence of preventable illness and more frequent hospital admissions.

At the heart of the experiences documented by the Disability Royal Commission is discrimination. People with an intellectual disability disproportionately experience harm because they are treated unequally, excluded from services, denied opportunities, or experience life in settings where their rights are more likely to be limited.

The DDA is intended to prevent and address this discrimination and in so doing contribute meaningfully to the Disability Royal Commission’s vision of an inclusive Australia. However, the DDA can only be effective if people with disability - especially those most acutely impacted and face the greatest barriers to accessing justice - are able to understand, access and rely on its protections. For many, this is not yet the case.

Recent data underscores both the scale of discrimination experienced by people with disability and the persistent barriers to justice. In 2023-24, complaints made under the DDA accounted for 43% of all complaints received by the Australian Human Rights Commission - nearly twice as many as those made under the Sex Discrimination Act (22%) and far higher than those under the Racial (14%) or Age (5%) Discrimination Acts. Employment was the second highest area of complaint (29%), after goods, services and facilities (33%), reflecting the systemic barriers people with disability face in everyday life and in seeking fair work. 6

Despite this, people with an intellectual disability comprised only 3% of complainants, suggesting that those most affected by discrimination are among the least able to access the law’s protections. This highlights a profound accessibility gap - not only in how the DDA is designed and communicated, but in the broader systems that should support people to exercise their rights. Ensuring the DDA is effective therefore requires more than technical reform: it demands a deliberate focus on accessibility and proactive engagement with people with an intellectual disability.

In addition, we have worked alongside other Disability Representative Organisations (DROs) in support of a national Human Rights Act to ensure Australia fully upholds its obligations under the UNCRPD. While we strongly support efforts to modernise and strengthen the DDA, this should be understood as a first step on the path towards a national Human Rights Act that embeds specific protections for people with disability within a broader human rights framework. This approach affirms that human rights are indivisible and interdependent, ensuring people with disability are protected alongside other marginalised groups and that intersectional discrimination is properly addressed.

The need for proactive communication and education about the DDA

Legislative changes are crucial, but to enable the DDA to succeed in its aim to eliminate discrimination, reforms must be communicated and socialised in ways that ensure they are meaningful for both the people they are intended to protect and the duty holders who are required by law to comply. This requires active leadership from the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments to:

  • Communicate changes to the DDA in timely and accessible ways to people with disability and their representative organisations
  • Provide accessible information - including Easy Read, audio-visual and other accessible formats - so that people with an intellectual disability can understand what the law means for them and how to act on their rights
  • Support education for all duty holders, so they understand their responsibilities - particularly in relation to a positive duty, which is discussed on page 11 of this submission
  • Ensure that complaint pathways and enforcement processes are not only technically available but genuinely accessible to people with an intellectual disability and their families. This means providing clear, accessible information about the DDA and complaints process, and ensuring people have the support they need - whether from family, friends, or formal supports such as advocacy - to understand their rights and make informed decisions.

This was a common theme throughout our consultations with people with an intellectual disability. Across all focus groups, participants emphasised that clear and accessible communication is needed around the DDA, so that people understand how it works, how the DDA protects their rights and how to bring forward a complaint.

“We need information and knowledge on how to make a complaint on someone who has discriminated.”

“Make sure information is accessible - use Easy Read, braille, large print, video or digital formats.”

There was also a strong consensus in our consultations that Easy Read information about the legislative changes - and an Easy Read version of the legislation itself - is crucial. People with an intellectual disability also recommended audio/visual explainers of the DDA so all people - including duty holders - can understand their rights and responsibilities.

“People with disabilities should know their rights and there should be more education around this.”

Because the DDA can be abstract and technical, it is important to provide scenarios about how the DDA works to promote understanding. For example, illustrations about the positive duty of organisations to eliminate discrimination in their practices, policies, and environments. There should be illustrations for a variety of organisations, including employers and schools. That way, people can see concretely what organisations should be doing and how they can take action if discrimination is occurring.

“Provide a simple definition as well as scenarios so people can visualise how it might occur.” “Have a roleplay in video format with lived experience, explaining concepts.”

Participants also suggested ways of building capacity within the community:

“I reckon with the employment, community and schools, it’d be good if we had someone, or the government could, send someone with a disability around to talk about and spread the awareness.”

This proactive approach to communication and education about the protections enforced by the DDA is the difference between procedural access to justice and substantive access to justice. Unless reforms to the DDA are accompanied by a strong communication and education strategy across the community, substantive rights risk remaining inaccessible to many people with an intellectual disability.

The role of the Australian Human Rights Commission

The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) plays a central role in advancing disability rights under the DDA, but its ability to act has been severely constrained by chronic underfunding. While the 2022 amendments introduced a systemic inquiry power, this has never been used - not because it is unnecessary, but because the AHRC lacks the resources to exercise it.

To ensure the DDA is effective in practice, the AHRC must be provided with substantial and stable funding to:

  • Provide a substantial increase in funding to the AHRC - based on the level of need in the community, which should be determined through targeted consultation with the AHRC in partnership with the disability sector - for systemic inquiries, education, and accessible complaint handling and any new powers brought about by changes to legislation.
  • Enable the AHRC to issue compliance notices, civil penalties, and accept enforceable undertakings, particularly in relation to a positive duty.
  • Enable the AHRC to monitor and publicly report on systemic discrimination trends.

Adequate communication, education, and resourcing of the AHRC are essential to ensuring the DDA is not just a legal framework but a living safeguard that people with an intellectual disability can understand, access and rely upon in their daily lives.

Q inclusion Australia es — www.inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 11

Definition of disability

The definition of disability determines who is protected under the law and shapes how rights are understood and enforced. People with an intellectual disability in our consultations talked about the need for legislation - and dedicated communication from government about changes to the legislation - to be grounded in lived experience as much as possible. For example, helping the general public understand what discrimination looks like and how it can be experienced by people with disability - including because of how someone looks, behaves or communicates, and not just their diagnosis alone.

“The definition of disability needs to be broad and not selective as it can feel discriminatory for people that don’t fit the definition.” “A definition that encompasses everyone allows people to be their true self.”

For the legislation to be fit-for-purpose, we believe the definition of disability must meet the following requirements:

  1. It must have currency and meaning for people with disability themselves - including people with an intellectual disability. If the definition is not meaningful to the community whose rights it seeks to uphold, including by reflecting the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), it risks undermining confidence in the law and limiting people’s ability to use it to assert their rights. We strongly recommend the UNCRPD be included as a schedule in the legislation.
  2. It must recognise that many people face barriers to obtaining a formal diagnosis, particularly people with an intellectual disability. People with milder intellectual disability may not identify as having a disability or may not have access to assessment or documentation to gain an official diagnosis. At the same time, they may have clear support needs or behaviours that must be understood through a disability lens. The definition of disability therefore plays a critical role in ensuring that legal protections and remedies are available to all people who experience disability-related barriers, not only those with a formal or recognised diagnosis.
  3. It must also remain legally relevant and workable in practice. While the language must align with contemporary understandings, it cannot compromise clarity or legal certainty. A definition that is too vague may hinder people’s ability to bring claims under the DDA or create unnecessary complexity for courts, tribunals, and regulators. The definition must therefore balance accessibility and lived meaning with legal precision and maintain its broad application.
  4. It should include a definition of intersectionality. Currently, it is not clear that claims can be made under a more than one protected attribute. This narrow approach fails to reflect the lived reality of many people with disability, whose experiences of discrimination occur at the intersection of disability and other aspects of identity. It also can work to limit access to justice and fails to capture the full extent of the harm caused. To address this, there must be a clear provision added to the definition that a person can make a claim with two or more protective attributes.

Removing the comparator test

The Disability Royal Commission found that the comparator test - which requires people with disability to demonstrate that they were treated less favourably than a person without disability in similar circumstances - creates significant barriers to justice, because:

  1. It is overly technical and complex. People with disability are forced into an abstract comparison that often bears little relationship to their actual experience of discrimination. For people with an intellectual disability, this requirement creates more acute barriers, as it demands a level of hypothetical reasoning and legal framing that is highly inaccessible.
  2. It places an unfair burden of proof on the complainant. Individuals must not only prove they experienced unfavourable treatment but also show that the reason was specifically their disability. This is particularly difficult when the motives or decision-making processes of duty holders are opaque and inaccessible.

We strongly support the Disability Royal Commission’s recommendation to remove the comparator test and instead focus on whether a person with disability has experienced “unfavourable treatment or detriment”. This shift to a “detriment test” would make the law more accessible and effective for people

Q inclusion Australia es — www.inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 12

with an intellectual disability, while also aligning with contemporary anti-discrimination law practice.

Burden of proof and causation

We agree with the recommendations provided by the Justice and Equity Centre in relation to a need for a shifting burden of proof to be introduced for causation. Once a person with disability establishes that they were treated unfavourably, the conduct should be presumed to have occurred for an unlawful reason. The onus would then fall on the respondent to prove that any unfavourable treatment or detriment was not because of the person’s disability. This approach aligns with the shifting burden of proof that already applies under the Fair Work Act.

“When the complaint is received, the person being alleged to have discriminated against the individual must be able to prove that they did not discriminate.” “The person accused should have to prove they didn’t discriminate.”

Amending the definition of indirect discrimination

The reasonableness element of indirect discrimination creates barriers to justice. It is often unclear how to determine what is “reasonable,” and its overlap with “unjustifiable hardship” creates confusion and duplication. For these reasons, we agree with the recommendations provided by the Justice and Equity Centre to remove the reasonableness element entirely.

If the reasonableness element is retained, we support the Justice and Equity Centre’s recommendation to replace the test of “reasonable” with “legitimate and proportionate” as a clearer and more specific standard. In either case, additional guidance on factors to consider should be provided to ensure consistency and clarity in application.

Finally, we support the Justice and Equity Centre’s recommendation that the language of “does not or would not comply, or is not able or would not be able to comply” should be removed from the definition of indirect discrimination. Instead, the law should focus on the disadvantage caused, consistent with other federal discrimination laws.

Q Inclusion Australia es = www.inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 13

Positive duty to eliminate discrimination

“Having a positive duty on organisations could be life-changing.”

As the Issues Paper states, the DDA operates primarily as a reactive law: it provides people with disability the right to make a complaint once discrimination has already occurred. While this is an important safeguard, it places the onus on individuals to identify, pursue, and prove cases of discrimination through complex legal processes. For people with an intellectual disability, this is often an impossible task without intensive and sustained advocacy, as well as significant emotional and financial support.

The Disability Royal Commission and the AHRC have both highlighted that this reliance on individual complaints results in systemic discrimination going unaddressed. By and large, people most affected by discrimination experience the greatest barriers to being able to use the law intended to protect them.

We strongly support the introduction of a positive duty to eliminate discrimination that would apply to all duty holders under the DDA.

“Embed inclusion in everyday practice, similar to how we have Acknowledgment of Country for First Nations peoples.”

Why a positive duty is needed in the DDA

People with an intellectual disability experience discrimination in ways that are often indirect, systemic, or difficult to prove. In some cases, it can be difficult for a person to even perceive or name as ‘discrimination’, especially when such experiences may have become a normalised part of daily life for a person, including where people may experience a high level of social isolation, very limited autonomy and lack informal or formal safeguards.

“It’s the barriers that the community set up for that makes things difficult.” “Disability can make life harder when there are barriers put in front of us by other people, so our disability is not the thing that gets in the way.”

The Polished Pathway infographic presents one way to conceptualise this across certain life transitions. It shows how cumulative barriers starting early in life - such as school placement, access to mainstream classes, work experience, and post-school programs - incrementally restrict opportunities for inclusive education, employment, and fair wages.

QQ inclusion Australia es = www.inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 14

classes, work experience, and post-school programs - incrementally restrict opportunities for inclusive education, employment, and fair wages.

“Encouraging positive duty means focusing on values and empowerment, not punishment.” “Reward and recognise good practice - empower people to do the right thing.”

These cumulative barriers, which include inaccessible information, denial of supported decision-making, low expectations, policy settings that are unfit-for-purpose and limited alternative options, often push people towards segregated education settings, day programs, or Australian Disability Enterprises (ADEs). Once on these pathways, transitioning to inclusive options, if that is a person’s choice, is extremely difficult. Many people remain in segregated, low-paid work, relying primarily on the Disability Support Pension (DSP) and having very restricted options for genuine inclusion in public life on an equal basis with others.

In this way, indirect discrimination is embedded in policies, processes, and practices across education, employment, and social security systems. A complaints-based model alone cannot capture these dynamics, because people with an intellectual disability face significant power imbalances, inaccessible systems, and lack of independent support to pursue legal remedies. As people with an intellectual disability told us in a consultation:

“Sometimes discrimination isn’t necessarily one person doing something to another person. Oftentimes it is being done by a group of people or systemic stuff… a system of discrimination against that person, not a person doing it.” “There are assumptions for people with [disability] that they die young, don’t understand what is being said, have no future expectations, life or independence.” “Discrimination includes policies and rules that stop people with disability from taking part, not just individual acts.”

Accessible communication is vital to enable people with an intellectual disability to fully participate in society. Participants supported requiring organisations and businesses to have accessible communication policies, so that they are required to share information in Easy Read and other accessible formats including braille options for people who are blind or low vision and in community languages.

“Having documents in easy-read formats helps people to feel included.” “The Act should create obligations on organisations to prevent discrimination, not just respond to complaints.”

Most focus groups discussed the need to ensure public spaces are accessible. Businesses and services must make new buildings accessible and create plans to upgrade older buildings to bring them up to code. This includes having accessible parking available. A rule must also be established to allow service animals like guide dogs into public spaces.

“A new rule in the Discrimination Act could be making physical accessibility mandatory for any new business and add a timeline when businesses have to do it.”

A positive duty would shift the responsibility onto employers, service providers, schools, and other duty holders to take active, reasonable, and proportionate steps to identify and eliminate all forms of discrimination before harm occurs. This approach is already embedded in the Sex Discrimination Act following the Respect@Work reforms and is consistent with Australia’s obligations under the UNCRPD.

“Emphasise that people with disability can have friends, relationships and meaningful lives.” “Include trauma-informed approaches that understand how discrimination causes long-term harm.”

A positive duty must:

Q Inclusion Australia x www.inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 15

  • Require organisations to anticipate and remove barriers, including by providing accessible information and supported decision-making
  • Reduce the reliance on individuals to bring forward complaints that they may lack the resources or support to pursue
  • Create accountability for systemic discrimination.

In addition, we agree with the proposals outlined by Disability Advocacy Network Australia (DANA) in their submission in relation to the need for specific education and guidance for all duty holders about their obligations under a positive duty as a key part of implementation. Capacity building resources should clearly explain what this duty means in practice, including what kinds of adjustments may be needed to meet it. This should be developed through codesign with the disability community, including with DROs.

One useful way to describe a positive duty is through the idea of anticipatory adjustments, as used in the UK Equality Act (2010). This means organisations and public bodies must plan ahead and make common accessibility changes to their services and facilities before people ask for them, for example, in line with Universal Design principles. In the UK context, anticipatory adjustments do not replace the need for individual adjustments, but they help turn the idea of a positive duty into practical action. They also lift the overall level of inclusion from the beginning. Encouraging organisations to think about positive duty in this proactive way - by making adjustments both in advance and in response to individual needs - reinforces that working with and including people with disability should be part of everyday business, not an optional extra.

How a positive duty can strengthen economic participation and productivity

In addition to advancing equality and fairness, introducing a positive duty would have clear economic and productivity benefits. By requiring employers and institutions to proactively remove barriers and create inclusive environments, more people with disability - particularly people with an intellectual disability - would be able to access and sustain meaningful employment. This would reduce reliance on income support, increase workforce participation, and expand Australia’s overall productivity base.

Australia is currently missing out on the full skills and productivity of over 2.1 million people with disability - a cohort with one of the lowest employment rates of any group. Only 48% of working-age people with disability are employed, compared to 80% of the general population, and for people with an intellectual disability that number falls to just 39%. Only 28% of working-age people with an intellectual disability receive wages or salary as their main source of income, compared with 80% of the broader working-age population. As the Polished Pathway above demonstrates, most people with an intellectual disability remain in low-paid work or outside the labour market altogether, while employers across sectors face persistent labour shortages.

By requiring organisations to proactively identify and remove barriers, a positive duty would expand inclusive employment opportunities, reduce reliance on the Disability Support Pension (DSP) as a person’s primary source of income, address entrenched poverty, and enable people with disability to participate fully in economic and social life.

Beyond advancing economic justice and supporting equitable opportunity and living standards, a positive duty would also contribute to broader productivity gains by harnessing the talents and skills of people who are currently excluded from meaningful employment. For example, Deloitte Access Economics has estimated that even modest reforms to improve workforce participation could deliver net benefits of more than $400 million annually - underscoring that inclusion is not just a rights issue but a driver of national productivity and growth.

By proactively embedding a positive duty into the DDA, Australia can move from a reactive, piecemeal approach to a preventative culture of rights. This is essential if the DDA is to deliver real, enforceable protections for all people with disability, including people with an intellectual disability.

Making a positive duty meaningful

Proactively embedding a positive duty into the DDA would shift Australia from a reactive, complaints-based system to a preventative

Q Inclusion Australia es —— www.inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 16

culture of rights, ensuring real and enforceable protections for all people with disability, including those with an intellectual disability.

To be meaningful, a positive duty must be supported by clear guidance and education for duty holders, accessible resources co-designed with people with disability, and adequate, and sustainable funding for the AHRC to monitor, enforce, and support compliance. People with an intellectual disability who took part in our consultations talked about the need for this proactive work, with one person sharing:

“It shouldn’t get to the point where it has to go into the newspapers or the news before someone does something or changes an Act. Do something before it gets to that stage.”

Proportionate enforcement mechanisms, such as compliance notices, enforceable undertakings, systemic investigations, and civil penalties, are essential to ensure accountability for breaches. Implementation could be staged (as it has been in some jurisdictions who have included a positive duty in state or territory-based anti-discrimination legislation) starting with reasonable adjustments, and rolled out incrementally alongside the community, with legislated periodic reviews to ensure ongoing effectiveness.

By empowering the AHRC to investigate and enforce breaches, a positive duty would provide a robust, preventative framework that addresses systemic discrimination and promotes inclusive participation across all areas of public life, including by increasing productivity.

Q inclusion Australia es = www.inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 17

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

The DDA has a crucial role to play in enabling the full inclusion of people with disability in all areas of public life, including employment, education, and participation in the community. However, despite being in place for more than 30 years, the DDA has not been sufficient to shift the systemic exclusion many people with an intellectual disability face in many areas of public life. As discussed above, for people with an intellectual disability, the persistence of discrimination continues to deny equal access to education, work and other areas of public life.

Strengthening the duty to provide adjustments

The concept of reasonable adjustments is central to the DDA, but in practice it has not been implemented in a way that provides effective protection for people with disability. The Disability Royal Commission heard extensive evidence, particularly in education, of adjustments not being provided, misunderstood, or dismissed without meaningful engagement with the person or their family. For people with an intellectual disability, this often results in exclusion from school, training, or work opportunities.

“If we’re given the right tools and the right opportunities to get out there and do what we can do, we can do anything.” “It’s the barriers that the community set up for that makes things difficult.” “Disability can make life harder when there are barriers put in front of us by other people, so our disability is not the thing that gets in the way.”

The current unjustifiable hardship provision does not require duty holders to consult with the person with disability (or their family or other informal supporters) about what adjustments may be appropriate or necessary. This means decisions can be made without fully understanding the person’s situation or the impact on their life. It also allows adjustments to be refused without considering whether alternative, less burdensome options might have been available.

“Holding people accountable this includes emergency officials and other people involved in the matter so that people with disability feel like that their issue is not being swept under the carpet.”

Embedding supported decision-making

A critical element of genuine inclusion is ensuring that people with disability are supported to make their own decisions about the adjustments and supports they need. The Disability Royal Commission called for the development of a national supported decision-making framework, underpinned by clear principles recognising that all people have an equal right to make decisions about their lives and to have those decisions respected.

Embedding these principles within the DDA would help ensure that consultation with people with disability is not tokenistic, but grounded in the values of autonomy, dignity, respect and participation. It would mean that people are presumed capable of making decisions, and that they are provided with the support they need to express their will and preferences, including accessible information and communication support.

Supported decision-making also recognises the important role of families, informal supporters and independent advocates in helping people understand information, communicate their choices, and participate in decisions that impact their lives to the fullest extent possible. Embedding this approach in the DDA - especially in relation to the provision of adjustments - would give clearer guidance to employers, education providers and service organisations about their obligations to engage with people with disability and their supporters in a meaningful way when identifying and implementing adjustments.

Importantly, supported decision-making goes hand in hand with a positive duty to eliminate discrimination and promote equality. As discussed above, a positive duty would require duty holders to proactively build accessible systems, processes and communication methods that enable people with disability to understand their options, make informed choices, and have those choices respected. It would also help ensure that the provision of adjustments and supports is driven by the will and preferences of the person, rather than by risk avoidance or administrative convenience.

Incorporating supported decision-making principles into the DDA would help create a more consistent and rights-based approach across all areas of public life — including education, employment, and service delivery — and support a cultural shift towards genuine inclusion, respect and equality.

Q Inclusion Australia x www.inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 18

We recommend reforms to strengthen the provision of reasonable adjustments in the DDA by:

  • Removing the word ‘reasonable’.
  • Including the principles of supported decision-making, as set out in Recommendation 6.6 of the Disability Royal Commission, in the DDA - this could be as part of a Schedule.
  • Requiring that, when considering whether an adjustment would impose unjustifiable hardship, decision-makers must take into account:
    • the extent to which the person with disability and, where appropriate, their family were consulted; and
    • whether alternative adjustments were available that could reduce hardship for the duty holder while still supporting inclusion.
  • Creating a stand-alone duty to provide adjustments. This would make it unlawful for a duty holder to fail or refuse to make an adjustment unless doing so would impose unjustifiable hardship. Such a provision would clarify obligations and provide a direct legal ground for people with disability to challenge a failure to provide adjustments.

A stand-alone duty would also help build a stronger culture of rights. It would move the DDA closer to its original intent - ensuring that people with disability are not excluded because organisations choose not to take simple, practical steps that could enable their full participation.

“Flexibility for each situation is key.”

Access to goods and services

Access to everyday goods and services remains one of the most common areas where people with disability experience discrimination. AHRC’s data shows that in 2022-23, half (50%) of all disability discrimination complaints related to goods, services and facilities. Similarly, one in three people (32%) who reported experiencing discrimination said it came from a person providing goods or services, such as health staff, transport operators, hospitality workers or retail assistants. Notably, health staff alone accounted for 22% of these experiences.

Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics reinforces this picture - people with disability (28%) are more likely than people without disability (20%) to experience problems accessing service providers. The most common areas where barriers arise include:

  • Centrelink, Family Assistance, or Medicare services (50%)
  • Telecommunications (35%)
  • Hospitals and health-related services (29%)
  • Banks and financial institutions (28%).

These figures show that discrimination in goods and services is widespread and often systemic. Under the current framework, people with disability are largely responsible for identifying and challenging discrimination after it occurs. A key part of giving effect to a positive duty is ensuring that the provision of reasonable adjustments is treated not as an optional response to complaints, but as a core responsibility of all providers of goods and services. Embedding the expectation that adjustments are routinely identified, offered and implemented would help make inclusion a practical reality.

Employment

The Disability Royal Commission highlighted the long-standing and systemic barriers that prevent people with disability from participating equally in employment. This is particularly acute for people with intellectual disability, who experience one of the lowest rates of open employment and among DSP recipients one of the highest levels of poverty in Australia.

The DDA has not been strong enough to break down these barriers. Direct and indirect discrimination continues to act as a powerful deterrent for people with an intellectual disability seeking work. A key example of this is the misuse of the “inherent requirements” exception, where employers at times fail to properly consider reasonable adjustments that would enable inclusion. Further clarity is needed to ensure the concept of inherent requirements is applied in a way that promotes, rather than limits, participation.

“Employment for people with disabilities is unfair. Our rights should be upheld and emphasised. The public often assumes our capabilities, limiting our freedom to speak out. We should be able to

Q inclusion Australia es = www.inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 19

ask for assistance when needed.”

People with an intellectual disability also told us that barriers are present because a lot of employers do not know what assistance is available to include modifications and extra supports for their employees, such as through JobAccess.

“Others should be more informed about the benefits people with disabilities bring to the workforce. We should have the same employment rights as everyone else. People should think before they speak and stop making assumptions. We can be employed like anyone else.” “I think people because they don’t understand themselves sometimes, they just say no. By giving the person an opportunity to show their skills and to show what they can do in the workplace they said that this would be a really good idea and give them a trial period.”

To that end, employers should be required by the DDA to identify what is genuinely inherent to a role, and to consider whether adjustments, redesign, or other supports/technologies could enable a person to perform those tasks. The DDA should define “inherent requirements” with reference to the essential outcomes or purpose of a role, rather than fixed tasks. It should also make clear that tasks can be redistributed where this does not affect the core purpose of the job, and that adjustments must always be considered before an employer concludes a person cannot perform a role.

Obligations under the DDA should also be understood as covering the full span of employment. Adjustments and inclusive practice must apply not only at the point of hiring, but also in retention, progression, and career development. For example, barriers may emerge later in a person’s working life when opportunities for training, promotion, or leadership are overlooked. Clear duties on employers to consider adjustments and inclusive practice across all stages of employment will help ensure that people with disability can build long-term careers, not just access entry-level jobs.

“When it comes to employing people with disability employers should modify tasks if needed, even if it isn’t the standard way to do things.”

Finally, exclusionary discipline provisions in the employment context must be addressed to ensure people with disability are not excluded from work or training through disciplinary processes based on assumptions about capacity or disability-related behaviour. The DDA should embed consistent minimum protections in this area and confirm that no exemptions apply to harassment or offensive behaviour. All people have the right to work in environments free from harassment and offensive conduct. The DDA must recognise harassment as a distinct form of discrimination - consistent with the approach taken to sexual harassment under the Sex Discrimination Act - reflecting the stigma, assumptions, and hostility that people with disability too often face in their working lives.

As outlined on page 15 of this submission, removing barriers to employment for people with an intellectual disability supports both their economic inclusion and the efficient use of Australia’s workforce, reinforcing the connection between human rights and national productivity.

“Require organisations to take active steps to include people with disability, especially in schools and workplaces.”

Education

Children and young people with an intellectual disability continue to face widespread discrimination and exclusion across Australia’s education systems. For many people, their experiences of discrimination start with school. Education decisions are a key part of the Polished Pathway explained on page 14 of this submission, which can lead people with an intellectual disability away from an inclusive life and towards diminished social and economic opportunities later in life.

“They will send you do a day service or supported employment rather than actually looking at your personal skills and sending you and getting your job.”

People with an intellectual disability want mainstream schools to be more welcoming of people with disability and to have clear requirements that they cannot discriminate against them. This includes requiring that schools give students with disability the same subjects, learning, and experiences as other schools (like work experience, sex education, formals, TAFE, and university pathways).

“There is a lack of understanding and inclusivity of people with disabilities at schools. People should be educated about the various types of disabilities and our lived experience.”

Q inclusion Australia es = www.inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 20

The Disability Royal Commission documented the prevalence of exclusionary discipline practices, such as suspension, expulsion, and shortened school days, which are disproportionately applied to students with disability. These practices deny children their right to education and reinforce segregation. Families are often left to navigate a complex complaints system, with limited support.

“More money in schools to include children with disabilities so other students accept them.” “Include all disabilities including visible disabilities, invisible disabilities and people with intellectual disabilities.”

We support the recommendations made by Children and Young People with Disability Australia (CYDA) in relation to the need for clearer definitions and stronger accountability for exclusionary discipline practices, including the conditions that must be met before and after these practices occur, and a mechanism for appeal. We agree that a more comprehensive process should be undertaken by governments to accurately capture and define all forms of exclusionary practices used across education settings, including:

  • Academic exclusion such as gatekeeping entry to a school or particular learning program required by the student, or placing pressure on families to enrol their child in a special school rather than their local mainstream school, even when the child and family express a preference for inclusion.
  • Informal exclusion such as asking parents or carers to collect their child early or bring them in late
  • Physical and structural exclusion such as segregating a student from peers by placing their desk outside the classroom, or not providing ramps for a child using a wheelchair
  • Social and emotional exclusion such as failing to address bullying concerns, using punitive approaches to disability-related behaviours/dysregulation, or asking a child not to attend school excursions
  • Formal disciplinary exclusion such as suspension and expulsion
  • Use of restrictive practices.

These patterns of exclusion can also extend into transition points, such as when students are prevented from taking part in open or mainstream work experience opportunities, and instead are automatically directed to Australian Disability Enterprises (ADEs). This denies young people the chance to explore inclusive employment options and reinforces the expectation of segregation in adult life, and reinforces the Polished Pathway explained on page 14 of this submission.

An education system that continues to exclude children with disability will continue to reproduce exclusion in employment and public life. Strengthening the DDA in this area is therefore essential, including through the recommendations to strengthen the duty to provide adjustments.

Q inclusion Australia es — www.inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 21

Improving access to justice

Access to justice is a fundamental right, yet for many people with disability, particularly people with an intellectual disability, it remains out of reach. The Disability Royal Commission documented the many barriers faced by people with disability in dealing with police, courts, legal processes, and related systems such as child protection. For people with an intellectual disability, these barriers are magnified by lack of tailored supports, including accessible information and communication support, advocacy or legal representation, and the tendency of systems to misinterpret some forms of behaviour (or experiences of dysregulation) as non-compliance or threat.

These barriers are further compounded for people who do not have a formal diagnosis or who do not identify as having a disability, as is the case for some people with mild/undiagnosed intellectual disability. Without recognition of their disability-related support needs, they are less likely to receive reasonable adjustments or understanding from justice and legal systems. This highlights the importance of ensuring that legal definitions and frameworks reflect the diversity of disability experiences, so that protection under the law is not contingent on having a formal diagnosis but on the presence of disability-related barriers and support needs.

In addition, there are also significant interface problems between disability services, justice, and safeguarding systems that lead to poor outcomes for people with disability, including people with an intellectual disability. For example, where there are conflicts or incidents between residents, particularly in group homes, some providers may respond by calling the police rather than using internal dispute resolution processes. In these situations, the lack of proper support or understanding of supported decision-making may lead to criminalisation rather than resolution.

At one end of the spectrum, some providers may rely on the police as a de facto dispute resolution service, escalating situations that should be managed through appropriate supports and communication. At the other end, police may dismiss serious issues and fail to take action to safeguard residents’ rights or safety. Both responses reflect systemic failures - a lack of adequate training, accountability, and person-centred practice.

These problems are compounded by policies that limit people’s choice about where and with whom they live. When people are placed in unsuitable or unsafe living arrangements, without meaningful choice or control, the risk of conflict and harm increases. Ensuring access to genuine supported decision-making, independent advocacy, and robust internal complaints and dispute resolution mechanisms is essential to prevent inappropriate engagement with police.

The role of police

Currently, the prohibition against discrimination in the provision of services does not clearly cover interactions between police and people with disability. Courts have sometimes interpreted policing functions narrowly, finding that only certain roles - such as providing protection to victims - can be characterised as services. This leaves a significant gap where discriminatory treatment by police cannot be effectively challenged.

“Show police and educate on different disabilities and how to approach these individuals with disabilities. Police need to give individuals the chance to think, understand and respond.” “They need to listen and understand us as equals.”

People with disability are disproportionately criminalised, coming into contact with police earlier and more often than others. People with an intellectual disability are frequently misunderstood in interactions with police, where some forms of behaviour (which may include dysregulation), which is linked to disability or trauma, is wrongly interpreted as non-compliance, threat or aggression. This leads to unnecessary escalation, charges, or detention. Without a clear obligation to avoid discrimination, these systemic issues remain unchecked. These risks are even greater for First Nations people with an intellectual disability, who face additional systemic failures and acute overrepresentation at every level of the justice system.

“Police need to have more awareness and education on how to support people with disability.”

QQ inclusion Australia es —— www.inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 22

“Continue police education programs that promote understanding and reduce fear.” “Police should slow down, listen carefully and use clear words.”

We strongly support the Disability Royal Commission’s Recommendation 8.17 to expressly include “services provided by police officers in the course of performing policing duties and powers” in the definition of ‘services’ in section 4 to remove ambiguity.

“Have more police available who understand disability.”

In addition, we believe this inclusion should make clear that the DDA applies to law enforcement responsibilities across Federal, State and Territory jurisdictions. We support the Justice and Equity Centre’s recommendation to create a distinct duty that applies to the exercise of statutory functions and powers to provide greater clarity and certainty, while also ensuring that policing, corrective services, and child protection agencies are all held accountable under the DDA, which is discussed below.

Child protection systems

Barriers to justice extend beyond traditional legal settings. Systems such as child protection also function as ‘justice-related’ environments where people with an intellectual disability face significant discrimination. For example, parents with an intellectual disability are disproportionately subject to intervention and child removal, often based on assumptions about capacity rather than evidence of harm. The injustices and experiences of parents with a disability in child protection systems across English speaking countries is well documented within research.

Despite being a very small percentage of the parental population in Australia at about 0.4%, or around 17,000 parents, parents with an intellectual disability experience alarming rates of child removal and are overrepresented within the child protection system.

During Disability Royal Commission, advocates in almost every jurisdiction reported multiple cases of child protection taking the children of people with disabilities without proper and verifiable evidence of abuse and neglect or risk of abuse and neglect. This supports both Australian and international research, which over several decades has consistently identified that parents with an intellectual disability and their children, especially mothers, are overrepresented as subjects of child protection allegations, investigations, and proceedings. This systemic violence disproportionately impacts First Nations parents, including First Nations parents with an intellectual disability.

A submission to the Disability Royal Commission from Family Inclusion Network Australia, with input from the Positive Powerful Parents Self Advocacy Group, highlighted the extent of systemic discrimination experienced by parents with an intellectual disability. Their submission was prepared through extensive consultation with parents and their supporters and shared recommendations about how to better support parents with disability and their children in contact with child protection systems, while also recognising that the issues do not begin nor end with that system.

The consultations identified systemic discrimination against parents with disability, where disability was either seen as synonymous with deficit and “inherently risky to children,” or ignored entirely in assessments instead of being recognised as a factor requiring appropriate support. As one consultation participant explained, “We had two different kinds of experiences - one, the disability with a negative frame was all that child protection workers saw, with disability seen as abusive and neglectful, and a deficit focus brought. The second way didn’t seem to ‘see’ the disability at all.”

This level of systemic discrimination and bias is well documented in national and international research, which shows that child protection practitioners very often do not work from a rights- and strengths-based lens. Rather, the system focuses on the ‘deficits’ and ‘deficiencies’ of the parent, reflecting the ableist and discriminatory mindset that conflates intellectual disability with ‘risk’ or ‘incompetency’.

These attitudes - both direct and indirect forms of discrimination in themselves - mean that parents are unlikely to be linked in with support services, and that where those service connections do exist, they rarely meet parents and families’ needs. This results in devastating consequences for families and communities, including severe human rights breaches, the often-permanent removal of children from their parents,

Q Inclusion Australia x www.inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 23

widespread discrimination, and - as a research report commissioned by the Disability Royal Commission named it - “obstetric violence”.

A modernised DDA must explicitly address discrimination in these ‘justice-like’ systems. The DDA should give parents with disability a clear right to challenge discriminatory practices in child protection, guardianship and related settings. Negative attitudes and stereotypes are one of the most significant forms of discrimination that can be experienced in these settings, and there is a significant need for mandatory training, led by people with lived experience, to address attitudes that can lead to indirect or direct forms of discrimination.

“Education on the lived experiences of people with disabilities is essential to combat ignorance.”

To achieve this, we recommend the creation of a distinct statutory duty that applies to the exercise of functions and powers under Federal, State and Territory law. Such a duty would provide clarity and certainty, ensuring that child protection authorities - as well as policing and corrective services - are held accountable under the DDA. This reform would make visible a group whose experiences and rights continue to be rendered invisible, and create a pathway to systemic change by embedding disability rights principles into the systems that currently perpetuate discrimination.

“Keep improving communication, patience and respect when engaging with people who act or communicate differently.” “They need to give individuals the chance to think, understand and respond.”

Vilification and offensive behaviour

At present, the DDA makes harassment unlawful in some areas of public life, such as employment, education and the provision of goods and services. However, it does not define harassment, nor does it provide protection against offensive behaviour or vilification in a broader sense. This leaves people with disability exposed to public conduct that humiliates or intimidates them, including online abuse and hate speech, without a clear avenue for redress.

“We want the government to change the laws to better protect people from offensive behaviours about disability and stop spreading hate about people with disabilities.”

We strongly endorse the reforms recommended by the Disability Royal Commission (Recommendations 4.29 and 4.30). These include introducing a standalone prohibition on offensive behaviour on the basis of disability, modelled on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act; applying appropriate exemptions consistent with section 18D of that Act; and enacting a separate prohibition on vilification of people with disability. Together, these measures would provide a clear framework for addressing conduct that humiliates, demeans or incites hatred against people with disability.

“If offensive behaviour is displayed by politicians in power, they should lose their rights to power as a politician and be stood down in parliament.”

Such reforms would modernise the DDA, align it with other Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws, and respond to the well-documented harm caused by hate speech and harassment. They would also complement recent criminal law reforms by providing a civil remedy for serious conduct that may not meet the threshold for prosecution but still causes significant harm. Importantly, definitions of ‘public act’ should include online spaces, with accountability extending to both individuals and, where appropriate, platforms that host harmful material.

“Social media pages should be monitoring posts and if there is anything that indicated discrimination it should be reported to the administrator, taken down and reported to the authorities as well as the person that made the post should be blocked from making future posts/comments.”

Q Inclusion Australia x www.inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 24

Exemptions

The DDA includes an exemption for the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which permits people to be lawfully discriminated against on the basis of disability when applying for visas, permanent residency, or citizenship. This exemption is tied to the Migration Health Requirement (MHR), which assesses whether applicants, or their family members, are likely to pose a “significant cost” to Australia’s health or community services.

Critically, this test is applied regardless of whether services will actually be used, and is based on a hypothetical comparison with another person with the same condition. This framing entrenches ableism and creates unjust outcomes. Families can be permanently separated, children can be refused residency purely because of disability, and people who would otherwise contribute skills and community connections are excluded. The so-called “one fails, all fail” rule compounds this injustice, by refusing visas to entire families where a single member is assessed as failing the MHR.

In addition, the policy settings underpinning the MHR are inconsistent. For example, “special education” is treated as a community cost under the MHR, while regular schooling and English language supports are not. Waivers are inconsistently available, with some visa classes allowing flexibility while others offer no pathway to appeal or review, even where applicants can clearly demonstrate that the benefits they bring far outweigh notional costs. In practice, the vast majority of people who are eligible for a waiver succeed in obtaining one - yet many are never given the chance to apply.

The Disability Royal Commission recommended that the Migration Act exemption in the DDA be formally reviewed. We welcome this recommendation but consider that the evidence is already clear, and that Section 52 of the DDA must be significantly amended

In line with this position, we endorse the recommendations provided in the submission prepared by Welcoming Disability, a campaign led by Australian Lawyers for Human Rights and Down Syndrome Australia, below:

  1. Section 52 should be amended such that the extent of discrimination it renders legally permissible is narrowed while still balancing the policy consideration of protecting public health.
  2. Based on Recommendation 1 above, that section 52 be amended, we further recommend that the Federal Government review and remove:
    • Australia’s interpretative declaration on Article 18 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities;
    • all formalities and procedures relating to migration and asylum, in order to ensure compliance with Australia’s obligations under: a. the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities b. the Convention on the Rights of the Child c. the remaining core United Nations human rights treaties to which Australia is a State Party.
  3. The objects of the DDA should be amended to explicitly state that one of the purposes of the Act is to incorporate Australia’s binding international legal obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into Australian domestic legislation.
  4. The DDA should be amended to specify that international human rights law, including but not limited to treaties and conventions and the judgments of domestic, foreign and international courts and tribunals and treaty monitoring bodies relevant to a human right may be considered in interpreting the DDA’s statutory provisions.
  5. The Department of Home Affairs (the Department) should be re-cast as a duty holder. This positive duty to remove discrimination should be reviewed by the Australian Human Rights Commission.
  6. An avenue of complaint or appeal under the DDA should be made available to all those who experience discrimination under the Migration Act, Regulations or associated instruments, and by those implementing the Act.
  7. Action plans prepared by duty holders under the DDA should be required to be updated overtime, and subject to guidance and minimum requirements. In particular: a. the time frames for implementation of action plans under the DDA be introduced and monitored;

Q Inclusion Australia x www.inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 25

b. outcome statements should be published as part of action plans; c. an external body such as the Australian Human Rights Commission should oversee the implementation of action plans under the DDA.

In relation to the other exemptions in the DDA, we believe there should be set period reviews included in legislation, at frequency of every 5 years.

Q Inclusion Australia Pe www.inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 26

Modernising the Disability Discrimination Act

Assistance animals

We support the recommendations from the Justice and Equity Centre regarding assistance animals and recognise the need for a complete overhaul of the approach to protecting the rights of people with assistance animals.

“Assistance animals should be able to be in all public spaces.”

This should include a legislated national Framework to regulate assistance animal training, recognition, rights, and enforcement, providing greater detail and binding force than existing National Principles and superseding current state-based frameworks. The Framework should balance flexibility and certainty, potentially combining head and delegated legislation, and be supported by guidance materials where appropriate. While some specific training organisations may be identified for administrative purposes - such as providing separate avenues for assessment or certification for large-scale providers — no training organisations should receive preferential legislative treatment. This approach would clarify obligations for people with disability and duty holders, ensuring consistent standards for training, hygiene, and behaviour in public spaces, and strengthening the enforceability of the rights of people who rely on assistance animals.

For many people in our consultations, transport was an area that should be explicitly addressed to reduce discrimination in general, and particularly as it relates to the use of assistance animals. People suggested that mandatory training should be required for train drivers, taxi drivers and rideshare drivers (eg Uber) so they know that they must accept everyone - including accepting transport of assistance animals.

“If they have a mobility aid like a walker and they want to get on a bus, you’re meant to put the ramp down and help them or let them on, but some people and whether it’s on a tram or train or a bus, saying look, sorry you can’t get on because I don’t have the time to assist you.”

Disability Action Plans

We broadly support the use of disability action plans as a tool for promoting inclusivity and preventing discrimination. For people with an intellectual disability, action plans can be an important mechanism for organisations to publicly commit to improving accessibility, educating staff, and increasing meaningful participation. We consider that minimum requirements should be established to ensure action plans cover the full scope of an organisation’s activities and set out clear, measurable commitments - especially training for staff in understanding disability rights and what they must do to comply with the DDA.

There was a strong consensus across consultations that organisations, services and professionals that serve the public must be required to undertake training, to understand the DDA and what they must do to comply. This includes private businesses and government services. This training can be reinforced by requiring organisations have codes of conduct that prohibit discriminatory behaviour.

“Give companies discrimination training which includes what discrimination looks and feels like.” “Anyone in a customer facing role should have to take on anti-discrimination training.” “Training should be provided to better protect and prevent discrimination against people with intellectual disability.” “Include liaison roles in health, education and justice systems to help families navigate services.”

We believe that the AHRC should have the authority to provide guidance on developing action plans, assess whether plans meet minimum requirements, and offer feedback to strengthen their quality. Such measures would enhance accountability and ensure that action plans translate into tangible improvements in the rights and inclusion of people with an intellectual disability.

Disability Standards

We support strengthening the enforceability of the Disability Standards, as they play a critical role in protecting the rights of people with intellectual disability across key areas such as premises, education, and transport.

However, a key limitation is that compliance is currently assessed primarily through individual complaints to the AHRC which as

Q Inclusion Australia es = www.inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 27

discussed earlier in this submission, places a disproportionate burden on people with an intellectual disability who face significant barriers to bring forward complaints.

As discussed on page 9 of this submission, introducing a positive duty on all duty holders would require proactive measures to prevent discrimination and ensure compliance with the Standards. This duty should be supported by enhanced regulatory powers and funding for the AHRC, including the ability to issue compliance notices, seek civil penalties, and accept enforceable undertakings, without relying solely on individual complaints.

We also consider that Disability Standards should be closely integrated with disability action plans. Duty holders should be required to report on their compliance with relevant Standards when developing their action plans. The AHRC should be adequately resourced by Government to provide clear guidance on this reporting, assess whether plans meet minimum requirements, and have the authority to reject plans that do not achieve an appropriate standard. Linking action plans and Standards in this way would strengthen transparency, accountability, and practical outcomes, ensuring that people with an intellectual disability experience meaningful improvements in accessibility and inclusion.

Q Inclusion Australia x www.inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 28

Reference list

1 https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report-executive-summary-our-vision-inclusive-australia-and-recommendations 2 McVilly, K., Ainsworth, S., Graham, L., Harrison, M., Sojo, V., Spivakovsky, C., Gale, L., Genat, A., Zirnsak, T. (2022). Outcomes associated with ‘inclusive’, ‘segregated’ and ‘integrated’ settings: Accommodation and community living, employment and education. A research report commissioned by the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. University of Melbourne, Australia. Page 120. 3 McVilly, K. et al. 2022. Outcomes associated with ‘inclusive’, ‘segregated’ and ‘integrated’ settings. 4 ‘Cognitive impairment’ is an umbrella term used by the Disability Royal Commission. It describes a range of cognitive disabilities, including intellectual disability. 5 Ibid. 6 Australian Human Rights Commission. 2024. Annual Report 2023-24 - Complaint statistics. Retrieved from: https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/commission-general/publications/annual-report-2023-24 7 Rosencrans et al. (2021). Invisible populations: Who is missing from research in ID? RIDD, 119104117. 8 Intersectionality recognises that people experience discrimination in complex and interconnected ways when multiple aspects of their identity interact. As defined in the Tasmanian Disability Rights, Inclusion and Safeguarding Act 2024, intersectionality refers to “the multi-layered experiences of people with disability in relation to the personal attributes of a person or group of persons that create interconnected and interdependent systems of disadvantage or discrimination.” 9 Wadiwel, D., Spivakovsky, C., and Steele, L. 2022. Complaint mechanisms: Reporting pathways for violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. A research report commissioned by the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. University of Sydney, University of Melbourne and University of Technology Sydney, Australia. 10 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. People with Disability in Australia - income from wages or salary. Retrieved from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/disability/people-with-disability-in-australia/contents/income-and-finance/income 11 Inclusion Australia. 2022. Equal Pay Equal Rights. Retrieved from: https://www.inclusionaustralia.org.au/submission/equal-pay-equal-rights/ 12 South Australian Centre for Economic Studies. 2021. Disability Employment Landscape Research Report. Retrieved from: https://www.dss.gov.au/system/files/resources/disability-employment-landscape-research-report.pdf 13 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2024. People with disability in Australia. Retrieved from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/disability/people-with-disability-in-australia/contents/employment/employment-rate-and-type 14 Wilson, E. and Campain, R. (2020) ‘Fostering employment for people with an intellectual disability: the evidence to date’, Hawthorn, Centre for Social Impact, Swinburne University of Technology. 15 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. People with Disability in Australia - income from wages or salary. Retrieved from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/disability/people-with-disability-in-australia/contents/income-and-finance/income 16 National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) (2019). People with an intellectual disability in the NDIS. Retrieved from: https://data.ndis.gov.au/reports-and-analyses/people-intellectual-disability-ndis 17 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. People with Disability in Australia - income from wages or salary. Retrieved from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/disability/people-with-disability-in-australia/contents/income-and-finance/income 18 Deloitte Access Economics. 2025. Opportunities for reform to improve workforce participation of Disability Support Pension recipients. Retrieved from: https://apo.org.au/node/331611 19 McVilly, K., Ainsworth, S., Graham, L., Harrison, M., Sojo, V., Spivakovsky, C., Gale, L., Genat, A., Zirnsak, T. (2022). Outcomes associated with ‘inclusive’, ‘segregated’ and ‘integrated’ settings: Accommodation and community living, employment and education. A research report commissioned by the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. University of Melbourne, Australia. 20 Disability Royal Commission. 2023. Volume 7 Part A - Inclusive Education, Employment and Housing. Retrieved from: https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/2023-09/Final%20Report%20-%20Volume%207%2C%20Inclusive%20education%2C%20employment%20and%20housing%20-%20Part%20A.pdf. See especially from page 96. 21 McVilly, K., Ainsworth, S., Graham, L., Harrison, M., Sojo, V., Spivakovsky, C., Gale, L., Genat, A., Zirnsak, T. (2022). Outcomes associated with ‘inclusive’, ‘segregated’ and ‘integrated’ settings: Accommodation and

Q Inclusion Australia x www.inclusionaustralia.org.au Page 29

community living, employment and education. A research report commissioned by the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. University of Melbourne, Australia. 22 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2024) People with disability in Australia 2024, catalogue number DIS 72, AIHW, Australian Government. 23 Ibid. 24 ABS (2019a) Microdata: Disability, ageing and carers, Australia, 2018, ABS cat. No. 4430.0.30.002, ABS, AIHW analysis of TableBuilder data, accessed 5 August 2021. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/microdata-tablebuilder/available-microdata-tablebuilder/disability-ageing-and-carers-australia 25 ABS (2019b) Disability, ageing and carers, Australia: summary of findings, 2018, ABS, accessed 30 July 2021. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/disability/disability-ageing-and-carers-australia-summary-findings 26 Wilson, E. and Campain, R. (2020) ‘Fostering employment for people with an intellectual disability: the evidence to date’, Hawthorn, Centre for Social Impact, Swinburne University of Technology. 27 ACOSS and UNSW. 2024. Rate of poverty by income support payment. Retrieved from: https://povertyandinequality.acoss.org.au/data/poverty/rate-of-poverty-by-income-support-received-by-household-reference-person/ 28 Disability Royal Commission. 2023. Volume 7 Part A - Inclusive Education, Employment and Housing. Retrieved from: https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/2023-09/Final%20Report%20-%20Volume%207%2C%20Inclusive%20education%2C%20employment%20and%20housing%20-%20Part%20A.pdf. See especially from page 96. 29 Disability Royal Commission. 2023. Volume 9 - Criminal justice and people with disability. Retrieved from: https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/2023-09/Final%20Report%20-%20Volume%208%2C%20Criminal%20justice%20and%20people%20with%20disability.pdf 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 Burnett, C., Swanberg, M., Hudson, A., & Schminkey, D. (2018). Structural Justice: A critical feminist framework exploring the intersection between justice, equity and structural reconciliation. Journal of Health Disparities Research and Practice, 11(4), 4.; LaLiberte, T., Piescher, K., Mickelson, N., & Lee, M. H. (2017). Child protection services and parents with intellectual and developmental disabilities. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil, 30(3), 521-532. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12323; Macintyre, G., & Stewart, A. (2012). For the record: the lived experience of parents with a learning disability - a pilot study examining the Scottish perspective. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(1), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.2010.00669.x; McConnell, D., Aunos, M., Pacheco, L., & Feldman, M. (2021). Child Maltreatment Investigations in Canada: Main and Moderating Effects of Primary Caregiver Cognitive Impairment. Child Maltreatment, 26(1), 115-125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559520910806 33 Man, W., Wade, C., & Llewellyn, G. (2017). Prevalence of parents with intellectual disabilities in Australia. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 42(2) 173-179. doi: 10.3109/13668250.2016.1218448. 34 McConnell, D. (2008). Parents labelled with Intellectual Disability: Position of the IASSID SIRG on Parents and Parenting with Intellectual Disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 21(4): 296-307 DOI:10.1111/j.1468-3148.2008.00435.x; 35 Inclusion Australia. (October 2022). Submission to the DRC - the Omnibus. Retrieved from: https://www.inclusionaustralia.org.au/submission/submission-to-the-drc-the-omnibus/ 36 Callow E., and Jacob, J. (2014). Parental disability in child welfare systems and dependency courts: Preliminary research on the prevalence of the population. Child Welfare 93 (6), pp 73-92. 37 Collings, S., Dew, A., Gordon, T., Spencer, M., & Dowse, L. (2018). Intersectional Disadvantage: Exploring Differences Between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Parents with Intellectual Disability in the New South Wales Child Protection System. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 12(2), 170-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2017.1379456 38 Fitt, K., David, C. 2022. ‘We should not be punished for having a disability’: Recommendations for reforms to Child Protection, family Services and Disability Systems from Parents with a Disability. Submission to the Disability Royal Commission from Family Inclusion Network Australia with input from Positive Powerful Parents Self Advocacy Group. Retrieved from: https://thereily.foundation/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Fitt-David-FINA-PPP-DRC-report-version-2022-12-08.pdf 39 Libesman, T., Gray, P., Chandler, E., Briskman, L., Didi, A., and Avery, S. (2023). Parents with Disability and their Experiences of Child Protection Systems, Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and

Q Inclusion Australia x www.inclusionaustralia.org.au = Page 30