24 October 2025
Disability Discrimination Act Review Attorney-General’s Department
By Email: DDAReview@ag.gov.au
REVIEW INTO THE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992
SUBMISSION BY ASSOCIATED CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS
I refer to the review by the Attorney-General’s Department into the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, in response to the recommendations made by the Disability Royal Commission.
Associated Christian Schools represents the interests and perspectives of 45 member schools (all independent Christian schools based within Queensland). Our member schools are responsible for the education of approximately 33000 students. Our member schools include mainstream schools, special schools and special assistance schools.
A primary value of our member schools is to demonstrate care and compassion for all their students and prospective students, including students with a disability. Our member schools support the work done by the Disability Royal Commission and agree that the Disability Discrimination Act requires review and amendment. We appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed changes.
Changing the terminology around disability and neurodiversity, to remove negative connotations (such as malfunction, malformation, disfigurement, disturbed and impairment).
We support these changes. The language used in the legislation is inappropriate and does not align with the view of our member schools that all people are created with equal dignity and self-worth, and should be treated accordingly.
Amending the definition of Direct Discrimination to remove the comparator test
Whilst we understand that the comparator test has some complexity, we are concerned with any amendment that would result in a simple assessment of “unfavourable treatment”.
In our experience, schools rely on the comparator test (following the High Court decision of Purvis v New South Wales (Department of Education & Training) (2003) 217 CLR 92), in being able to demonstrate that a student has not been treated differently to how another student would have been treated in the same circumstances.
Christian education for the common good.
Web: www.christianschools.org.au
Email: redacted: s22 - irrelevant material
Phone: redacted: s22 - irrelevant material
Address: redacted: s22 - irrelevant material
Given that “disability” includes behaviour that is a symptom or manifestation of the disability, a student whose enrolment is terminated because of inappropriate behaviour may be able to argue that they have been treated unfavourably “because of the disability”. A school should be able to respond by demonstrating that the student has not been treated differently to another student in the same circumstances, or alternatively that the decision of the school was reasonable and proportionate.
In this regard, it is important to appreciate that schools also owe a duty of care to other students and staff. Students exhibiting inappropriate behaviour to other persons may result in unfavourable treatment, and it is important that schools be able to take appropriate (albeit measured) action in response to such behaviour.
Our preference would be to retain the comparator test, or otherwise amend the legislation to reflect the intent of the comparator test.
Amending the definition of “Indirect Discrimination” to remove the “reasonableness” requirement
Schools have operated on the basis that it will not be indirect discrimination where a term or condition being imposed is a reasonable requirement (i.e. the School Policy being applied, such as the Behaviour Management Policy/Code of Conduct, is a reasonable policy to apply).
In our view, the reasonableness requirement should be retained. We support the approach suggested in the Consultation Paper to provide guidance on factors relevant to determining reasonableness, or by including a “legitimate and proportionate” test (i.e. that the Policy is legitimate and proportionate in the circumstances).
Amending the “unjustifiable hardship” exemption
We are not opposed to the proposed amendments to the “unjustifiable hardship” exemption.
However, we would note that “unjustifiable hardship” is not, and should not be, limited to financial factors. There may be non-financial factors that also result in “unjustifiable hardship” for a school.
Discrimination considerations when “suspending” or “disciplining” a student
We do not oppose these amendments. By including “suspension” and “discipline”, it removes any potential ambiguity or confusion that might exist.
We thank you for the opportunity to provide submissions. If we can be of any further assistance, please contact the undersigned via redacted: s22 - irrelevant material
Yours sincerely
redacted: s47F - personal privacy
Consultant, Public Policy and Advocacy
Associated Christian Schools