24 October 2025
Disability Discrimination Act Review– Submission
INTRODUCTION
Inclusive and Diverse Communities Incorporated (IDC) is a secular, NSW-based, not for profit organisation that promotes access, inclusion, diversity, and intersectionality.
IDC welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this consultation on the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA). The Act has been a cornerstone of Australia’s legislative framework for advancing equality, inclusion and protecting the rights of people with disability for more than thirty years.
IDC has a strong interest in ensuring that the Act is able to provide better protection and support for the rights of people with disability in Australia. Lived experiences, evolving community expectations, and changes in social, economic, and technological contexts highlight the need to review and strengthen the enactment of the DDA.
This submission seeks to provide constructive feedback on how the Act may be improved to better achieve its objectives of eliminating discrimination, promoting equal opportunity, and fostering full participation in Australian society.
RESPONSES TO THE ISSUES PAPER
DDA Review
Disability Discrimination Act Review – Issues Paper - Attorney-General’s Department - Citizen Space
Issues Paper
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review
Q1. How should disability be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act?
and
Q2. What factors should be considered in developing a new definition of disability?
The medical model of disability sees people with disability from a deficit-based model, with the view that medical condition is a detriment. Sadly, disability can be weaponised against people. While the social model has supposedly overtaken the medical model, there were Disability Royal Commission (DRC) participants who provided testimonies that this was still occurring.
Instead of putting the onus on people with disability to provide medical evidence to access a product or a service, the onus must be on everyone else to provide inclusive and accessible environments where barriers have been lifted (social model). However, the limitations of the social model seem to stem from some institutions to community members who opt out of implementing the social model approach for several reasons.
When defining disability, IDC believes that it should be from a person-centred, strengths-based, and human rights based model. People with disabilities may have intersecting identities and diverse lived experiences. Their human rights are not lessened due to any medical or chronic conditions. They have a right to full inclusion and access to the community, including employment and social participation, just like everyone else.
When developing a new definition of disability – the most crucial factor is the research being informed by people living with disabilities- “Nothing about us without us” (James Charlton). People living with disabilities often feel excluded, spoken for and misrepresented. A stronger DDA with a revised definition of disability gives a new opportunity for people living with disabilities to be seen and advocated for.
Q3. Would the Disability Discrimination Act be strengthened by expressly allowing claims to be brought for multiple or combined protected attributes?
The DRC acknowledged that people from diverse and intersectional backgrounds experience different abuse and discrimination. For example, the DRC heard about the ‘gaps in legal protections for people with disability who experience violence and abuse in relationships, family and domestic settings.’ Final Report - Volume 2, About the Royal Commission
The DRC also heard about people with disability from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (CaLD) facing diverse cultural attitudes, language, and other barriers.
The ABS data (2022) stated that women with disability (10.6%) are slightly more likely to face discrimination than men (9.1%) and LGBTIQA+ individuals with disability face discrimination at almost 3 times the rate of their heterosexual counterparts (27.7% vs. 8.7%).
The Australian Human Rights Commission (ARHRC) receives the most complaints relating to discrimination in the workplace lodged by people with disability and advocates.
With the DDA allowing claims to be brought for multiple or combined protected attributes, the law is simply reflecting the realities faced by people with disability from diverse and intersecting backgrounds. In contrast, allowing single, separate claims may impose more burden and trauma for people with disability, with systems and institutions treating their lives as fragmented and compartmentalised.
Q42. Should the Australian Human Rights Commission be able to reject action plans that fail to meet these requirements?
Currently, developing and implementing a Disability Inclusion Action Plan (DIAP) is mandatory for government agencies including NSW Councils. Making it mandatory for community organisations including smaller not-for-profit organisations is likely to add administrative and financial burden. In comparison, Reconciliation Australia provides a template for any organisation registering a Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP). While it is not mandatory to develop a RAP, it takes a significant amount of time and resources for organisations to develop and implement one following the template provided. This then makes it a deterrent for many under-resourced smaller not-for-profit organisations.
One alternative is for organisations, regardless of their size, to add a disability inclusion action or recommendation in their Strategic Plan, and in consultation with people with disability- “Nothlng about us with us”. They can then opt to self- report to AHRC, sharing their action statement and outcomes either at the end of their Strategic Plan or on an annual basis.
The commitment to uphold the human rights of people with disability requires some areas for consideration. The following factors may be useful to inform the organisation’s disability inclusion action statement:
- Co-design and leadership by people with disability – participation in governance and decision-making (not only during consultation)
- Cultural and intersectional considerations – recognition of diverse experiences across cultural, linguistic, gender, and socio-economic groups
- Accessibility for priority groups – First Nations peoples, migrants, and people with multiple marginalised identities
- Employment and career pathways – covering recruitment, adjustments, promotion, and retention
- Digital and communication accessibility – accessible websites, documents, apps, Auslan, Easy Read, captioning
- Dedicated funding and accountability mechanisms – to ensure plans are resourced and implemented
- Measurable outcomes – clear KPIs, benchmarks, and targets
- Complaint processes – accessible, transparent, and linked to continuous improvement
- Emergency preparedness and safety – inclusive planning for evacuation, disaster, and crisis responses
The reality is that an organisation may have the best written DIAP but may still breach the DDA for many reasons, for example, poor staff attitude. With DDA strengthening the protected attribute of disability, and allowing claims for multiple or combined attributes, it provides a powerful incentive for organisations to arrange for staff training and other actions necessary to show support for people with disability and comply with the DDA.
For government DIAPs, it is ideal if they are set for a multi-year term, subject for renewal at the end of each term, and more importantly, that they demonstrate consultation with people with disability from the development to implementation, and to evaluation phase- ‘Nothing about us without us’.
Mandatory government compliance which offers clear, transparent public accountability will transform DIAPs from aspirational documents into practical, enforceable tools for systemic change. They will enhance accountability, drive cultural change, and strengthen the DDA’s mission to eliminate discrimination and promote equal participation for people with disability.
Q45. How could compliance with and enforcement of the Disability Standards be improved?
IDC recommends the following:
- a clear set of National Disability Standards which strengthens protections for people with disability in various aspects of their lives
- better checks and balances for NDIS providers to protect people with disability from abuse, discrimination, exploitation, and neglect- accreditation, audits and random inspections, accessibility of whistleblowing processes
- training/education (planners, educators, employers, and other relevant groups) and a centralised support service to advise on compliance
- and a stronger role for people with disability in co-design (lived experience, co-design of monitoring tools, Disability Advisory councils, independent advocates to report breaches).
Q46. Should the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to encourage relevant duty holders to self-report on their compliance with the Disability Standard(s) in disability action plans?
For mandated government DIAPs, IDC recommends making compliance visible through public accountability. IDC supports the DDA being amended to require relevant duty holders (as per IDC’s recommendation above, mandated for government agencies) to self-report on their compliance with the Disability Standards through their DIAPs. This approach would provide transparent, publicly accessible evidence of good faith and accountability, strengthen organisational reputation, and promote inclusive practices, supported by a star rating system.
IDC recommends providing ample support such as practical toolkit, case studies and staff training for both government agencies and community organisations. The latter requires adequate government funding to support people with disability as a commitment to access and inclusion for all. For example, current funding for some children’s services has not increased for several years. On the ground, community organisations may face more challenges when supporting children with disability from CaLD backgrounds, where diversity and intersectionality often means higher levels of resources required.
The AHRC could support duty holders by providing a simple checklist and video to guide self-reporting on DIAPs, clearly outlining corresponding regulatory powers.
Good data, transparency and public accountability can effectively measure progress (for example- mandatory public reporting and accessibility scorecard. There is value in developing an evaluation tool that measures how well government agencies meet the National Disability Standards and the needs of people with disability through a central online register of compliance.
IDC recommends stronger remedies for individuals such as low-cost, fast dispute resolution pathways; and stronger protections against retaliation or compensation for systemic failures, not just individual cases.
Conclusion
The DDA 1992 has provided a vital framework for advancing equality, but its impact can be strengthened through clearer, more accountable DIAPs together with clear and transparent publicly available self-reporting platforms, which is mandatory for government agencies; as well as a more consistent, responsive National Disability Standards.
All tools and resources need to be practical, enforceable, and aligned with contemporary expectations to ensure they deliver real improvements in accessibility and inclusion.
Ongoing engagement with people with disability and key stakeholders will be essential to ensure reforms are effective and sustainable, keeping the DDA relevant as a driver of equal opportunity into the future.
Jointly developed by:
Eunice Sansour, Mawuli Dokli, and Dee-Dee San Jose