Blind Citizens Australia

Ph 1800 033 660 | E bca@bca.org.au | W bca.org.au | ABN 90 006 985 226

Response to Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 2025

Lodged online via Attorney-General’s Department Consultation Hub

Author: Melanie Chatfield, National Policy Officer

24 October 2025

Contents

• Blind Citizens Australia

• Response to Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 2025

• 1. Introduction

• 1.1 About Blind Citizens Australia

• 1.2 About people who are blind or vision impaired

• 2. Submission context

• 3. Blind Citizens Australia Summary Position

• 4. Recommendations

• 5. Response to Issue Paper Review Questions

• Definition of disability

• Intersectionality

• Definition of direct discrimination

• Burden of proof

• Definition of indirect discrimination

• Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities

• Human rights treaties

• Positive duty to eliminate discrimination

• Duty holder accountability

• Duty to provide adjustments

• Unjustifiable hardship

• Adjustments and inherent requirements in employment

• Volunteers and unpaid workers

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 2 of 48

• Exclusions in educational institutions

• Offensive behaviour, harassment and vilification

• Police and Justice

• Exemptions

• Special measures

• Assistance Animals

• Disability Action Plans

• Disability Standards

• Further options for reform

• Access to information

• Digital accessibility

• Complaints, compliance and penalties

• Accessibility of AHRC complaints system

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 3 of 48

1. Introduction

1.1 About Blind Citizens Australia

Blind Citizens Australia (BCA) is the peak national representative organisation of people in Australia who are blind or vision impaired. For over 50 years, BCA has built a strong reputation for empowering Australians who are blind or vision impaired to lead full and active lives and to make meaningful contributions to our communities.

BCA provides peer support and individual advocacy to people who are blind or vision impaired across Australia. Through our campaign work, we address systemic barriers by promoting the full and equal participation in society of people who are blind or vision impaired. Through our policy work, we provide advice to community and governments on issues of importance to people who are blind or vision impaired. As a disability-led organisation, our work is directly informed by lived experience. All directors are full members of BCA and most of our volunteers and staff are blind or vision impaired. They are of diverse backgrounds and identities.

1.2 About people who are blind or vision impaired

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), more than 1 in 5 Australians (about 5.5 million people) are people with disability. There are currently more than 500,000 people who are blind or vision impaired in Australia; with estimates that this will rise to 564,000 by 2030. About 80% of vision loss in Australia is caused by conditions that are preventable or treatable, many of which become more common with age¹.

Australians who are blind or vision impaired can live rich and active lives and make meaningful contributions to their communities: working, volunteering, raising families and engaging in sports and other recreational activities.

The extent to which people can actively and independently participate in community life does, however, rely on facilities, services and systems that are available to the public being designed in a way that makes them inclusive of the needs of all citizens — including those who are blind or vision impaired.

1 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2023). Vision and Eye Health.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 4 of 48

2. Submission context

BCA welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA)(Cth)(the Act, the DDA). Our submission draws on direct engagement on this topic as well as past consultations with our 3,000-strong member base, other people who are blind or vision impaired, supporters and associates, and our ongoing advocacy work in the disability sector.

This submission includes an overarching summary of BCA’s position and recommendations, and a response to questions detailed in the Issues Paper - Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review².

BCA works collaboratively with other disability stakeholders and supports views shared by agencies including, but not limited to, Vision 2020, Guide Dogs Australia, Vision Australia and the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network.

“I think the focus on positive duty and compliance is perhaps the most important thing we can address in this whole review. While the provision for adjustments will always be necessary, I think that reliance on asking for adjustments and then the subsequent discussions around reasonableness and unjustifiable hardship contributes negatively to further segregation and access and inclusion seen as a requested ‘extra’ This is particularly the case within education where there is the established Universal Design for Learning framework.”³

2 [https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-08/dda-issues-paper-text.DOCX](https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-08/dda-issues-paper-text.DOCX) 3 Blind Citizens Australia (2025) DDA Consultation with members.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 5 of 48

3. Blind Citizens Australia Summary Position

Modernise and strengthen legal protections for people with disability

BCA supports updating the DDA to strengthen protections for people with disability including people who are blind or vision impaired. The Act’s existing reliance on individual complaints and conciliation through the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) limits its impact, as many cases do not reach courts, and systemic issues persist. BCA strongly supports proactive prevention of unlawful conduct including introduction and enforcement of a positive duty. To achieve systemic reform, Commonwealth and State/Territory anti-discrimination legislation should be harmonised and aligned, ensuring coherent provisions and removing gaps, inconsistencies and contradictions. To achieve real change, legal reform must be accompanied by attitudinal changes and a shift in practices and public expectations.

Optimise compliance and enforcement mechanisms and create meaningful consequences for breaches of the DDA by duty holders

Improving procedural aspects of the DDA, including accessibility of complaint pathways, is a critical piece of work given past failures in monitoring compliance, enforcing accountability and imposing consequences for duty holders that fail to meet legal mandates. To ensure effectiveness of DDA reforms and deliver meaningful protections, it is critical that robust measures are implemented to enforce compliance. Comparable measures are already enshrined in other legislation including anti-discrimination laws, and protections for people with disabilities must be prioritised to ensure equitable treatment now and into the future.

Mandate equitable access to information, and accessible digital goods, services, and communication technologies

Access to information is central to people’s safety, health, community participation, employment, education, and essential services such as transport, banking, and retail. The DDA, enacted before widespread adoption of digital communications and services, lacks robust provisions for modern environments. Reform offers a pivotal opportunity to embed comprehensive, enforceable standards for accessible digital goods, services, and information communication technologies. By mandating usability and accessibility, reforms will safeguard the rights of people with disability and ensure equitable participation and safety in an increasingly digital world.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 6 of 48

4. Recommendations

Updating understandings of disability and disability discrimination

• Use modern rights affirming language to define disability and avoid deficit-based language including impaired/impairment.
• Make it unlawful to discriminate based on intersecting or combined protected attributes, including multiple disabilities.
• Use an unfavourable treatment approach to test for discrimination and remove the need for a comparator.
• Shift the burden of proof to the respondent, requiring the respondent to prove that the reason for their treatment of the person with disability was not because of the person’s disability.
• Narrow and simplify the definition of indirect discrimination by removing the defence of reasonableness and inability to comply and focus only on the exception of unjustifiable hardship.
• Align the DDA with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
• Ensure courts can interpret and apply the DDA in a manner that is consistent with Australia’s international human rights obligations and is beneficial to people with disability.

Positive duty to eliminate discrimination

• Introduce an enforceable positive (inclusive) duty that requires all duty holders to take proactive steps to prevent discrimination and report annually on their actions.
• Ensure a positive duty requirement is practical, meaningful and easy to understand and take appropriate steps to ensure duty holders understand obligations and are supported through the transition to new legislative requirements.
• Consider using the term ‘inclusive’ duty in place of ‘positive’ duty to prevent discrimination.
• Clarify accountability of duty holders in contracting arrangements to avoid shifting accountability for discrimination.

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

• Create a ‘stand-alone duty to provide adjustments’ to make it unlawful for a duty holder to fail or refuse to make an adjustment unless making the adjustment would impose unjustifiable hardship.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 7 of 48

• Replace references to ‘reasonable adjustments’ with ‘adjustments’ and provide a clear definition of adjustment.
• Work with disability stakeholders to develop guidelines or standards that articulate what constitutes adjustment (including the breadth and depth of options available) and provide clarity on what constitutes unjustifiable hardship.
• Achieve greater fairness and transparency in claims of unjustifiable hardship by requiring duty holders to consult with people with disability and explore all available alternative measures to eliminate or reduce hardship.
• Include provision for the involvement of disability advocates and representatives where desired by the person with disability to support participation in consultation processes.
• Expand the factors considered by employers when determining if an employee can carry out the inherent requirements of a job role.
• Ensure volunteers and unpaid workers are protected from unlawful discrimination in the DDA.
• Define exclusion and exclusionary discipline and make it explicitly unlawful to discriminate against a student on the grounds of their disability by suspending or excluding the student.

Improving access to justice

• Make it illegal to harass, threaten, or spread hate about people with disability and extend these protections to online spaces (such as social media).
• Include a new provision to cover policing and the justice system rather than including policing in the definition of services. Equip police and justice staff to actively prevent and address disability discrimination.

Exemptions

• Remove the permanent exemption for actions taken under the Migration Act 1958 from the anti-discrimination provisions.
• Establish stricter oversight and evidence-based criteria to ensure temporary exemptions are exceptional and do not perpetuate exclusion of people with disability.

Modernising the DDA - Assistance Animals

• Implement nationally recognised assistance animal licenses for trainers, training organisations and handlers as proof of accreditation.
• Prescribe accredited training organisations in the DDA regulations to remove any confusion

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 8 of 48

• around the legitimacy of assistance animals trained by these organisations.
• Apply stronger penalties and consistent enforcement to any duty holder proven to have refused entry to a person with a disability because they use an assistance animal.

Disability Action Plans and Standards

• Authorise the AHRC to not accept Disability Action Plans that do not meet requirements.
• Improve compliance with the Disability Standards by introducing a positive (inclusive) duty, requiring public reporting against agreed metrics by duty holders and applying meaningful consequences for failure to comply.

Further options for reform - Access to information and digital accessibility

• Explicitly recognise access to information as a separate area under the DDA.
• Explicitly include digital goods and services and digital information communication technologies under the DDA, and designate providers of digital goods and services as duty holders.
• Mandate Digital Accessibility Standards under the DDA.

AHRC Reform

• Properly resource and empower the AHRC with the authority to monitor DDA compliance, conduct audits, and investigate complaints promptly.
• Impose meaningful penalties for non-compliance with the DDA to deter violations.
• Reform the AHRC discrimination complaints process to be fully accessible and equitable for people who are blind or vision impaired.

*“I would like the Disability Discrimination Act to be inclusive and the language as a whole to be of easy reading so that everyone can understand it.”*⁴

4 Blind Citizens Australia (2025) DDA Consultation with members.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 9 of 48

5. Response to Issue Paper Review Questions

Definition of disability

1. How should disability be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act?

Recommendation: Use modern rights affirming language to define disability and avoid deficit-based terminology including impaired/impairment.

• BCA members unanimously agreed that the current DDA definition of disability is outdated and uses language which perpetuates stigma and exclusion.
• To reflect a more contemporary understanding of disability remove the terms: malfunction, disfigurement, disorder and disturbed.
• Incorporate human rights and social models of disability that emphasise inclusion and equity and recognise interaction between individuals and external societal barriers. Draw from evolving global standards, including the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (CRPD) and the World Health Organisation.
• However, BCA notes the UNCRPD definition includes the term impairment. In consultation with BCA members, most preferred that the words impaired or impairment be avoided in the DDA definition.⁵
• BCA recognises that the definition must legally distinguish someone with a disability from someone without a disability and that a balance between a societal focus and functional protections is necessary to prevent discrimination and achieve legal precision.

2. What factors should be considered in developing a new definition of disability?

Factors that should be considered include:

• Least offensive — Reflect the strengths of people with disability and avoid terminology that is pejorative or offensive. Promote disability as part of human diversity, not a tragedy or loss.
• Legally robust — Minimise any risk of duty holders exploiting ambiguity. For example, a pure social model that defines disability solely as barriers imposed by society risks reducing the

5 This feedback has prompted a review by BCA of its own preferred terminology however for the purposes of this document vision impaired has continued to be used.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 10 of 48

DDA’s protective breadth. As noted in the Issues Paper, the Productivity Commission has warned that shifting to a pure social model risks uncertainty in application, potentially leading to more appeals.

Inclusive — cover a wide range of conditions to prevent exclusion and incorporate intersectionality. Recognise diversity in disability including the variation within cohorts such as the range of different experiences for people who are blind and vision impaired.

Culturally sensitive — acknowledge that disability is not perceived uniformly across cultures and ensure respect for diverse cultural interpretations, including those of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, which may integrate spiritual, social, relational, or kinship elements.

Adaptable - Build in flexibility for modern contexts and emerging conditions.

Intersectionality

3. Would the Disability Discrimination Act be strengthened by expressly allowing claims to be brought for multiple or combined protected attributes?

Yes. Recommendation: Make it unlawful to discriminate based on intersecting or combined protected attributes, including multiple disabilities.

• Including intersectionality is critical to ensure comprehensive protection for individuals with disability who face compounded discrimination due to overlapping identities such as race, gender, sexuality or age. Discrimination can occur based on a combination of protected attributes and it can be difficult to determine the primary cause for discriminatory treatment.
• It is not acceptable that an aggrieved person experience additional burden in pursuing claims under multiple anti-discrimination legislation for separate protected attributes. Without an intersectional approach, the needs of groups such as women with disability who may face gender-based violence alongside accessibility barriers, or culturally diverse individuals who encounter language and cultural obstacles in accessing services may be overlooked.

“It’s unfair that you have to continuously rewrite your [discrimination] complaint in different jurisdictions. This is an inherent issue, which I have

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 11 of 48

brought up countless times, in countless reviews, and seems to always be glanced over the top. It never seems to get forward.”

Definition of direct discrimination

4. What test should be used to ensure that the definition of direct discrimination is easy to understand and implement for both duty holders and people with disability, and why?

Recommendation: Use an unfavourable treatment approach to test for discrimination and remove the need for a comparator.

• BCA members report that it can be hard to differentiate between direct and indirect discrimination, and a single incident of discrimination can constitute both forms.
• Determining direct discrimination based on a comparator — who may be a real or conceived person — is overly complex and can be unnecessarily problematic for both people with disability and the court system.
• Use of a comparator test fails to reflect the lived experience of discrimination. It does not consider the accumulated disadvantage associated with disability, such as lower educational and employment outcomes and higher rates of poverty and social exclusion. It also fails to address systemic or structural discrimination where policies or practices inherently disadvantage certain groups. For example, inaccessible facilities, goods and services or policies which disproportionately affect people who are blind or vision impaired.
• The AHRC identifies reforms to simplify the test of discrimination by removing the requirement for a comparator in favour of a detriment test, and the DRC Final Report recommends adoption of an unfavourable treatment approach - considered more appropriate and accessible for people with disability.
• BCA supports use of an unfavourable treatment approach as it applies in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) and the Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT).

6 Blind Citizens Australia (2025) DDA Consultation with members. 7 Productivity Commission. (2004). Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Final Report. 8 Commonwealth of Australia. (2023). Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability Final Report. 9 Australian Human Rights Commission. (2021). Free & Equal: A reform agenda for federal discrimination laws. 10 Commonwealth of Australia. (2023). Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability Final Report.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 12 of 48

An unfavourable treatment approach shifts the focus from comparing the complainant to a hypothetical person to evaluating whether the treatment they received was inherently disadvantageous or detrimental due to their protected attribute. It assesses whether a person has suffered a disadvantage, harm, or negative impact because of the treatment. For example, a person who is blind and uses screen reader software is treated unfavourably when they are unable to use online banking services due to inaccessible design and cannot complete transactions independently.

This approach aligns more closely with the CRPD’s definition of discrimination and whether a person’s human rights can be recognised, enjoyed and exercised, on an equal basis with others.

5. Could any other changes be made to the Disability Discrimination Act to recognise and provide protection for people with disability who have intersecting identities, or addressing compounding discrimination?

No further comment

Burden of proof

6. How should the burden of proof be addressed in the Disability Discrimination Act?

Recommendation: Shift the burden of proof to the respondent, requiring the respondent to prove that the reason for their treatment of the person with disability was not because of the person’s disability.

For people with disability who experience discrimination, collecting evidence and meeting the burden of proof requirements can be difficult and can deter people from progressing with a complaint of discrimination.

Adopt a burden of proof for direct discrimination in the DDA that is similar to the burden of proof requirements in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) where the applicant must prove that the treatment occurred and the respondent must prove that the treatment was not based on the person’s disability. For example, an employment application process requires submitting a resume through an online portal incompatible with screen-reader software (e.g. it uses CAPTCHA without audio alternatives). When the applicant asks the recruiter for an alternative method of submission, the recruiter refuses on the basis that the recruitment method is standardised for efficiency. This situation could constitute unfavourable treatment and in the event of a claim, the burden would be on the company recruiting for a job vacancy to justify

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 13 of 48

their actions, such as proving that providing an alternative (e.g. email submission) would impose unjustifiable hardship.

“I very much endorse an approach to reducing the burden of complaint on individuals and making compliance a greater focus. This could be particularly relevant where a dog guide refusal has occurred. Fines issued more readily by police would greatly assist in addressing this systemic issue.”

Definition of indirect discrimination

7. How could the definition of indirect discrimination be amended to ensure that it is easy to understand and implement for people with disability and duty holders?

Recommendation: Narrow and simplify the definition of indirect discrimination by removing the defence of reasonableness and inability to comply and focus only on the exception of unjustifiable hardship.

8. Should the reasonableness element in the definition of indirect discrimination be:

a. removed - YES b. retained and supplemented with a list of factors to consider c. replaced by a legitimate and proportionate test d. other (please expand)

Yes. The reasonableness element in the definition of indirect discrimination should be removed.

Reasonableness is subjective and the inclusion of reasonableness can dilute obligations and cause confusion between reasonableness and reasonable adjustment (positive duty).

In its submission to the Productivity Commission Inquiry into the Disability Discrimination Act BCA noted the confusion between direct and indirect discrimination, and that many respondents argue that unjustifiable hardship is made out in cases involving indirect discrimination in which the test is reasonableness. It is not clear in the legislation how the indirect discrimination provisions interact with discrimination in specific areas such as employment and goods and services which more easily accommodate allegations regarding

11 Blind Citizens Australia (2025) DDA Consultation with members. 12 Blind Citizens Australia (2003) Submission to the Productivity Commission Inquiry into the Disability Discrimination Act

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 14 of 48

direct discrimination.

It should be explicit in the legislation that there is an obligation to provide adjustments to the point of unjustifiable hardship. This will assist in addressing issues of systemic discrimination (e.g. inaccessible policies or procedures).

Unjustifiable hardship is a broad enough defence to not warrant any further excuses or opportunities for duty holders to avoid making adjustment.

9. Should the language of ‘does not or would not comply, or is not able or would not be able to comply’ be removed from the definition of indirect discrimination?

Yes. Remove ‘does not or would not comply, or is not able or would not be able to comply’

• As noted in the DDA Review Issues Paper, both the AHRC and Queensland Human Rights Commission believe the inability to comply requirement is unnecessary and confusing.
• The language should be removed, and the test should be the same as the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act 2010, that is, whether a requirement or condition disadvantages a person.

Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities

10. Should the Disabilities Convention be included in the objects provision of the Disability Discrimination Act?

Yes. Recommendation: Align the DDA with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The DDA is a key piece of legislation through which the Australian Government fulfils its obligations as a signatory to the CRPD. As the DDA predates the CRPD it doesn’t refer to it in its objects and interpretation sections which should be rectified.

Explicit alignment with the CRPD is critical to strengthen protections, ensure compliance with international human rights obligations, and address gaps in the current legal framework for people with disability. The CRPD explicitly addresses systemic issues (e.g. education and employment) and requires duty-holders (e.g. employers and service providers) to take proactive steps to eliminate barriers.

Alignment of the DDA with the CRPD would embed a human rights based approach, assist Australia’s reporting obligations to the UN and implementation of Australia’s Disability Strategy.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 15 of 48

Human rights treaties

11. Should the Disability Discrimination Act be expressly required to be interpreted in a way that is beneficial to people with disability, in line with human rights treaties?

Yes. Recommendation: Ensure courts can interpret and apply the DDA in a manner that is consistent with Australia’s international human rights obligations and is beneficial to people with disability.

• The CRPD obliges Australia to ensure its laws promote the rights of people with disabilities. An express requirement to interpret the DDA beneficially (in favour of people with disability where ambiguity exists) would promote substantive equality and align with Australia’s international obligations.
• Without the requirement, interpretations may favour duty holders (e.g. employers claiming unjustifiable hardship), as seen in critiques of the DDA’s reactive model.
• A beneficial interpretation would encourage courts to address structural barriers and promote universal design, aligning with the CRPD’s emphasis on systemic change. For people who are blind or vision impaired, this could mean more proactive digital accessibility, reducing exclusion from digital goods and services.

Positive duty to eliminate discrimination

12. If there was a positive duty in the Disability Discrimination Act, who should it apply to?

BCA members strongly agreed to the incorporation of a clear and enforceable positive (inclusive) duty for all duty holders.

• To ensure comprehensive coverage duty holders should comprise public and private entities including but not limited to: Federal, state, and local government agencies, departments, and public authorities; businesses, corporations, and organisations employing staff; entities providing goods, services or facilities (inclusive of digital goods and services); owners, operators or managers of premises, including commercial, residential, and public spaces; and education providers including schools, universities, and vocational training institutions.
• Duty holders must be required to proactively consider the needs of people with disability and

13 dana.org.au/royal-commission-analysing-the-recommendations-on-disability-rights-act/ 14 Australian Government Department of Education, Skills and Employment. (2020). Final Report: 2020 Review of the Disability Standards for Education 2005.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 16 of 48

remove any notion that duty holders don’t have to comply with the DDA because people with disability don’t use their services or aren’t employed in their organisation. For example: the failure of financial institutions to provide mortgage documents in formats that can be accessed by someone who is blind or vision impaired; or a workplace that requires staff to use a proprietary intranet system that is not accessible or useable for someone who is blind or vision impaired.

“I’m absolutely in favour of the introduction of a positive duty provision. I think it’s far too easy, particularly for smaller businesses, to say, ‘oh, we’re too small, we can’t do that’ for the most simplest thing like providing an accessible document.”

Recommendation: Introduce an enforceable positive (inclusive) duty that requires all duty holders to take proactive steps to prevent discrimination and report annually on their actions.

Without an enforceable positive duty, the system remains reactionary, focused on compensation and redress. A complaint-driven discrimination model alone is insufficient. It does not incentivise inclusive practices and poses significant barriers for people with disability to pursue a complaint due to its complexity, power imbalance, cost, and the uncertainty of achieving a satisfactory outcome.

Mechanisms for enforcement, reporting, monitoring and compliance with requirements, including minimum standards and tangible consequences for non-compliance, must be part of the legal framework for a positive duty. In recognition of their positive duty, duty holders should be required to publicly record in their annual reports the steps they are taking to eliminate disability discrimination.

Introduction of a positive duty that is unenforceable would severely limit practical effectiveness as was evident with the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) which was criticised for lacking enforceability, rendering it symbolic rather than effective.

15 Blind Citizens Australia (2025) DDA Consultation with members. 16 Dominique Allen, “An Evaluation of the Mechanisms Designed to Promote Substantive Equality in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic)” (2020) 44(2) Melbourne University Law Review 459.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 17 of 48

“Service providers should not be able to wriggle out of [obligations]. When I was trying to get a pedestrian crossing where I needed to get to a bus stop the [council] told me, ‘Oh, most vision-impaired people would have a helper, or a support worker to help them with that’. Basically, they were trying to get out of putting in [a pedestrian crossing] because there’s not enough pedestrians using it in the first place. Well, the reason there were not enough pedestrians is they’ve created a situation where there’s too much traffic, it’s dangerous and there’s no audible crossing signal.”

Recommendation: Ensure a positive duty requirement is practical, meaningful and easy to understand and take appropriate steps to ensure duty holders understand obligations and are supported through the transition to new legislative requirements.

• Introduction of positive duties requires careful management and socialization to change the culture. Organisations need to be informed and assured that meeting accessibility requirements does not have to be cost prohibitive. The size of a duty holder’s business or operations, and resources, should be considered in determining whether a measure under a positive duty obligation is proportionate but they should not be exempt from action.
• Overly onerous, unwieldy or complex requirements on duty holders without appropriate supporting mechanisms could lead to public criticism, resistance, delays and negative attitudes towards people with disability. The 2025 updates to the National Construction Code (NCC) — which is crucial to ensuring accessibility for people with disability - received criticism for being too complex and burdensome for the construction industry and progress on accessibility has stalled.
• Standards can play a critical role in clarifying positive duties to prevent discrimination by providing specific, actionable guidelines that translate broad anti-discrimination principles into practical obligations and measurable requirements for duty holders. For example, the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 require transport providers to use tactile paving and audio announcements (among other things) to provide accessibility for people who are blind or vision impaired. However, a criticism of the existing Disability Standards is that

17 Blind Citizens Australia (2025) DDA Consultation with members. 18 Joint media release: Action on red tape and approvals to build more homes, more quickly | Ministers

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 18 of 48

mechanisms for enforcement, reporting, monitoring and compliance are lacking, as are tangible consequences for non-compliance. This must be rectified as part of the DDA reforms.

Recommendation: Consider using the term ‘inclusive’ duty in place of ‘positive’ duty to prevent discrimination.

• Consultation with our members indicated the term ‘positive’ duty could be misunderstood by some duty holders. For example, in the case of ongoing challenges with dog guide refusals, a duty holder may see dog guide refusal from their restaurant as a ‘positive’ outcome for their business and patrons.
• ‘Positive’ is a term often used to describe something optimistic and conveys a sense of goodness or favourability e.g. she has a positive attitude.
• In contrast, terminology like ‘inclusive’ refers to the act of including or embracing all relevant people, groups or elements, often with an emphasis on diversity, equality or accessibility. It implies fairness, openness and ethical consideration and is already heavily associated with social justice. It is less about optimism and more about fairness.
• BCA acknowledges that ‘positive’ duty is an accepted aspect of existing legislative frameworks however from an advocacy perspective, BCA believes ‘inclusive’ is likely to convey the requirement in a manner that is more easily understood by duty holders. Some BCA members also indicated that they did not think the term ‘duty’ adequately encompassed the obligation to take action.

Duty holder accountability

Recommendation: Clarify accountability of duty holders in contracting arrangements.

• A frequent concern of BCA members is holding point to point transport providers (e.g. taxis, Uber) to account for discriminatory practice. For blind and vision-impaired individuals, the primary issue is refusal of service due to dog guides, but broader concerns include wheelchair inaccessibility and poor access to information.
• DDA Section 24 (services) applies but lack of clarity and gaps in enforcement allow evasion. Ride share platforms argue they are not ‘providers’ and rideshare drivers are independent contractors, shifting the blame and making it difficult to hold duty holders to account.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 19 of 48

• Complaints to AHRC or state bodies are resource-intensive, with low success. For example, BCA Member Debra Simons filed a complaint against 13Cabs with the AHRC and was offered a $100 gift voucher after the company claimed that while it made “all reasonable steps to combat breaches”, it was not liable for the conduct of the drivers, on the basis that it was a booking service and did not directly employ drivers.
• Paula, a guide dog user, had 32 Uber trips cancelled in July 2025, leading to a Federal Court lawsuit alleging discrimination. Paralympian Jeremy McClure was refused Uber rides three times in September 2025 because of his dog guide.
• Reform is needed to resolve these persistent discrimination issues and careful consideration must be given to the legislative drafting for duty holders and a positive duty to prevent deflection and evasion of accountability under the DDA.

“Companies should realise that their clientele would increase in the long run if they actually went to the trouble of including people with disabilities, both as customers and as employees.”

13. Are there lessons from the operation of the positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act that could be incorporated into a positive duty in the Disability Discrimination Act?

Yes. Practical effectiveness of a positive duty relies on the AHRC having requisite powers and resources to investigate, enforce and impose explicit penalties on duty holders who do not comply with positive duty requirements.

• BCA has heard from stakeholders that despite the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) including a positive duty, the SDA lacks regulation and enforcement of compliance and thus still relies on a complaint being made.
• Anecdotally, BCA understands that given the length of time it takes for a complaint to be resolved under the SDA, complainants have found it quicker and more effective to utilise

19 ‘So demeaning’: Melbourne woman denied service by 10 cabs in one booking over guide dog | Disability | The Guardian 20 After 32 refusals, Guide Dog user Paula is taking on Uber for discrimination - Justice and Equity Centre 21 Paralympian Jeremy McClure refused multiple Uber rides with guide dog - ABC News 22 Blind Citizens Australia (2025) DDA Consultation with members. 23 Australian Human Rights Commission (2025), Speaking from Experience: What needs to change to address workplace sexual harassment, Sydney: Australian Human Rights Commission. Speaking from Experience Report - What needs to change to address workplace sexual harassment

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 20 of 48

protections under the Fair Work Act for complaints that are employment related.

• Adoption and compliance with Standards under the SDA are hampered by a lack of awareness, training, and a failure of duty holders to recognise the positive duty requirement as a cultural change rather than a tick box exercise.
• Introduction of a positive duty in the DDA must be accompanied by effective mechanism to ensure duty holders, and the broader community, fully understand and are compelled to take action to meet their obligations.

14. What costs, benefits and other impacts would duty holders experience in meeting a positive duty under the Disability Discrimination Act? If you are an existing duty holder under the Disability Discrimination Act, please specify how you think meeting a positive duty would impact you.

No further comment.

15. Should there be exceptions or limits to the application of a positive duty?

No. Exceptions could create loopholes allowing systemic discrimination to persist.

• BCA members reported that a defence for unjustifiable hardship can be exploited to avoid or cause delays in duty holders acting e.g. blind or vision impaired students gaining access to adjustments in education and employment.
• A strong positive duty without exceptions supports intersectional inclusion, ensuring systemic changes that account for overlapping barriers and preventing duty holders from ‘cherry picking’ actions or groups to include.

Duty to provide adjustments

16. Would the creation of a stand-alone duty to provide adjustments better assist people with disability and duty holders to understand their rights and obligations?

Yes. Recommendation: Create a ‘stand-alone duty to provide adjustments’ to make it unlawful for a duty holder to fail or refuse to make an adjustment unless making the adjustment would impose unjustifiable hardship.

• Complex interpretation and legal decisions have fundamentally undermined the ability of the

24 Consultation with Disability Discrimination Legal Service 2025. Unpublished. 25 Sex Discrimination Act’s positive duty - making workplaces safer | Australian Human Rights Commission

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 21 of 48

DDA to secure the provision of reasonable adjustments for Australians with disability.

• A stand-alone duty to provide adjustments (reactive and individual focused) would operate to clarify the obligations on duty holders and provide a specific ground for people with disability to make a discrimination complaint if a duty holder fails or refuses to make such adjustments.
• For example, tertiary education providers continue to struggle to provide adjustments for staff and students who are blind or vision impaired (e.g. timely provision of assistive technology and accessible course materials). A BCA member who is vision impaired and employed by a university recounted their experience of being denied adjustment on the grounds that the small department in which they worked did not have sufficient budget (unjustifiable hardship) and that the duty holder failed to acknowledge the significant financial resources of the organisation as a whole (i.e. the university).
• The standalone duty for adjustment is complementary and can coexist with a positive duty to prevent discrimination (proactive and systemic).

17. Should the scope of the duty to provide adjustments apply only to the existing areas of public life covered by the Disability Discrimination Act, or extend to other contexts?

No further comment.

18. Would removing the word ‘reasonable’ from the term ‘reasonable adjustments’ to align the language with the legal effect create any unintended consequences?

Recommendation: Replace references to ‘reasonable adjustments’ with ‘adjustments’ and provide a clear definition of adjustment.

• Remove any misconception that a ‘reasonable adjustment’ is an adjustment that is both reasonable and does not cause unjustifiable hardship. Application of the unjustifiable hardship test should provide protection for any acts or omissions that would not be seen to be reasonable.
• Clearly define what is meant by adjustment to avoid ambiguity.

Recommendation: Work with disability stakeholders to develop guidelines or standards that articulate what constitutes adjustment (including the breadth and depth of options available) and provide clarity on what constitutes unjustifiable hardship.

26 People with Disability Australia, Letter to the Attorney-General: Amending the Disability Discrimination Act (May 10, 2021).

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 22 of 48

Unjustifiable hardship

19. What is your preferred approach to achieving greater fairness and transparency in claims of unjustifiable hardship:

a. the DRC amendment as proposed b. a new definition of unjustifiable hardship c. other (please expand)

Option A. Adopt the DRC amendment to unjustifiable hardship as proposed.

Recommendation: Achieve greater fairness and transparency in claims of unjustifiable hardship by requiring duty holders to consult with people with disability and explore all available alternative measures to eliminate or reduce hardship.

Recommendation: Include provision for the involvement of disability advocates and representatives where desired by the person with disability to support participation in consultation processes.

• BCA members report challenges in obtaining adjustments, particularly in education and employment settings, with duty holders denying adjustments and pleading unjustifiable hardship without any due process being undertaken.
• BCA agrees with the two additional factors to be considered when deciding whether a specific adjustment would impose unjustifiable hardship:

a) How much the person with disability has been consulted.

• A person with disability is uniquely able to discuss how they may personally complete work or use adjustments to thrive in a prospective or current role.
• Mandating engagement between duty holders and people with disability and ensuring that any decisions are informed by accurate advice about the person’s situation and the adjustment they may require aligns with international human rights obligations to make practical and effective adjustments and reduce perceptions of hardship through collaborative problem solving.
• It’s critical to ensure that people with disability are well equipped and/or adequately supported to participate meaningfully in engagement and consultation processes. A person with disability should have the right to include an advocate or representative where desired in consultation and engagement processes.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 23 of 48

• What constitutes consultation should be clearly defined. People with disability must not only be heard as a mere formality, but their views given due weight and documented.

b) What alternative options were available to remove or reduce hardship.

• People with disability currently bear the onus to disprove a hardship claim. This inclusion will help shift the burden of proof for fairness to the respondent (duty holder) and enhance transparency and accountability.
• It should be explicitly stated that unjustifiable hardship does not include the fact that a respondent might be inconvenienced, and nor should expenditure of resources, in and of themselves constitute unjustifiable hardship.

“The data shows that many businesses believe they are not set up for people with a vision impairment. They see full sight as a requirement to doing the job, as that’s how they do their jobs — but that’s not necessarily how the job has to be done.”

Adjustments and inherent requirements in employment

20. What are your views on amending the Disability Discrimination Act to consider the nature and extent of any adjustments made and encourage consultation between prospective or current employers and prospective or current employees before making employment decisions?

Recommendation: Expand the factors considered by employers when determining if an employee can carry out the inherent requirements of a job role.

• The institutional systematic barriers to employment for people who are blind or vision impaired remain unacceptably high. In 2021, a survey of 1,000 employers revealed that 92% of people involved in recruitment had concerns about hiring someone who was blind or vision impaired and 83% of Australian businesses lack confidence in hiring someone with a vision impairment. Only 30% of businesses in Australia are willing to adapt the job requirements to suit a person

27 Vision Australia. (2021). Employer Research Report

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 24 of 48

who is qualified for the role but has a vision impairment.

• Employer misconceptions, negative attitudes, stereotypes, and systems and processes that are inaccessible prevent people who are blind or vision impaired from obtaining or retaining employment even when adjustments could enable them to perform the work effectively.
• The lack of clarity around inherent requirements can discourage people with disability from applying for roles. Inherent requirements should clearly provide a reason as to why something must be done in a certain way and demonstrate why the requirement exists. For example, the requirement to have a truck driver’s license can be substantiated if the vacancy is for a truck driver’s role. However, a default job requirement for applicants to have a driver’s license overlooks the fact that for many roles, adjustment for other transport options is available and can be effectively utilised by people with disability who may not have a license.
• BCA agrees that creation of clear guidelines articulating the factors that might be considered when identifying inherent requirements could offer a practical and effective approach to support duty holders.
• A person with disability is uniquely able to discuss how they may personally complete work or use adjustments to thrive in a prospective or current role. Consultation before making employment decisions is key to avoid assumptions being made about core duties and adjustments.
• However, as noted in the Issues Paper, it must be recognised that some people with disability will prefer not to disclose their disability either in the recruitment process or following appointment to the role. Amendments to the legislation should not unintentionally disadvantage a person with disability by creating a situation where an employer is permitted to discriminate because they “were not advised”.
• BCA often hears from members that disclosing a disability during job applications leads to not securing interviews. Many applicants don’t disclose to avoid rejection, managing without adjustments, which can lead to underperformance or stress. Delays in installing necessary adjustments for people who are blind or vision impaired (e.g. screen readers, braille displays) can prevent employees from performing productively during initial employment periods, undermining job opportunities and reinforcing employer biases.
• Another factor that influences disclosure is lack of knowledge of the inherent requirements.

28 Vision Australia Employer Research (2021). Quantitative Report. EY Sweeney.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 25 of 48

People who are blind or vision impaired may not know what they will need by way of adjustments because prospective employers are not required to publicise the inherent requirements of a job.

“My first experience of workplace harassment was directly attributable to my ‘unique qualities’ that are intrinsic to RP [Retinitis Pigmentosa]. Another incident occurred when I was transferred against my will to a work site that had no suitable access to public transport although it was common knowledge that I didn’t have a drivers’ licence.”

21. Are there other amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act that could support engagement between prospective or current employers and prospective or current employees to better understand the inherent requirements of a job?

No further comment

“Protections around the recruitment of people with disability are a joke. The employment of people with disability (especially those requiring adjustments) will not change until there is major reform.”

22. Should any other amendments be made to the definition of inherent requirements, including factors that should be considered when deciding whether a person could carry out the inherent requirements of a job?

No further comment

Volunteers and unpaid workers

Recommendation: Ensure volunteers and unpaid workers are protected from unlawful discrimination in the Act.

• Volunteering can play an important role in the lives of people with disability, offering

29 The Secret — Being secretive was ruining my life https://www.bca.org.au/2020/1 1/09/the-secret/ 30 Blind Citizens Australia (2025) DDA Consultation with members.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 26 of 48

opportunities for social, economic, and cultural inclusion and many people who are blind or vision impaired rely on volunteer work to build up the necessary skills and work experience to gain paid work.

• BCA is aware of many instances where volunteering opportunities have been denied to a person who is blind or vision impaired due to perceived risks around occupational health and safety — despite research concluding that people with disability are significantly less likely to have a workplace accident — or presumptions about how the volunteer will complete the tasks associated with a position.
• The DDA does not use the term ‘volunteer’ or clarify their status, leading to uncertainty. The Australian Law Reform Commission (2014) noted this ambiguity, suggesting unpaid workers may fall outside employment protections. This ambiguity should be rectified.

Exclusions in educational institutions

23. Should the concepts of exclusion and exclusionary discipline be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act?

Yes. Recommendation: Define exclusion and exclusionary discipline and make it explicitly unlawful to discriminate against a student on the grounds of their disability by suspending or excluding the student.

• Despite the DDA and Disability Standards for Education (DSE), discrimination in education settings persists and significant reforms are still required to achieve inclusive education. CRPD states that students must not be excluded from education based on disability and should receive education on an equal basis to peers in their communities.
• Suspensions and exclusions can increase disengagement and perpetuate stigma, labelling students as ‘problematic’ when their challenges stem from systemic failures such as inaccessible environments, or the student not being appropriately supported to fully participate alongside their peers.

31 Recognising the role volunteering plays for Australians living with disability - Volunteering Australia 32 Graffam, J. et al., 2002a, “Employer benefits and costs of employing a person with a disability’, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 17, pp.251-263. 33 Blind Citizens Australia. (2023). Employment Policy. 34 Australian Law Reform Commission, Equality Before the Law (2014). https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/equality-before-the-law/. 35 UNCRPD (2005). Article 24 Education, clause 2; Disability Standards in Education 4.3. 36 Association for Children with Disability (ACD) DRC Snapshot on Gatekeeping and Exclusionary Discipline (July 2024).

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 27 of 48

• For students who are blind or vision impaired, barriers such as inaccessible textbooks, digital platforms, or lack of teacher training in assistive technology can lead to frustration, disengagement, or conduct misinterpreted as disruptive, resulting in disciplinary action.
• Reports by UNESCO indicate that children with disabilities are among the most excluded from education systems globally and illiteracy is higher in children with visual impairments, multiple or mental disorders compared to children with motor disabilities. The World Blind Union substantiates that children with visual disabilities are among the most excluded group from the education system.
• Australian Institute of Health and Welfare figures reinforce the persistent gap in educational attainment between people with and without disability. As of 2018, only 34% of people aged 20 and over with disability had completed Year 12, compared to 66% of people without disability.

24. Should there be exceptions or limits on when exclusion is unlawful?

No further comment.

25. Should any of the state and territory provisions relating to exclusionary discipline be adopted in the Disability Discrimination Act?

No further comment.

26. Would a different approach to exclusionary discipline be more appropriate in the higher education and vocational education and training sectors?

Yes. Education for adults requires consideration of professional education and safety standards and adult students face different barriers, career impacts and emotional distress from exclusions.

• Systemic and wide-ranging barriers to education and employment continue to be experienced by people with disability in the higher education sector.
• For students who are blind or vision impaired, inconsistent adjustment can lead to exclusion from practical courses. BCA has previously raised concerns about universities not advising

37 UNESCO. (2020). Global Education Monitoring Report: Inclusion and Education. 38 UNESCO. (2021). International Institute for Educational Planning. Disability inclusive education and learning portal. 39 Blind Citizens Australia. Education Policy. 40 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2024). People with disability in Australia Educational Attainment (web report) 41 Harpur, P., Stafford, L., & Ellis, K. (2025). A disability-led disability inclusion strategy for the higher education sector. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 47(3), 368-385.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 28 of 48

students of inherent course requirements, leading to exclusions without adjustments for students.

• BCA recently advocated on behalf of a student studying massage therapy. The education institution insisted the student use a support worker (at a cost to the student) to an appointment with a massage client despite the student’s objections that a support worker was not required and no similar requirement was applied to other students in the course.
• BCA also recently provided advocacy support to a vision impaired individual enrolled in a Bachelor of Science and Mechanical Engineering course who was excluded from participation without adjustment to course materials and examination methods.

Offensive behaviour, harassment and vilification

27. How could the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to protect people with disability from offensive behaviour and/or harassment?

Recommendation: Make it illegal to harass, threaten, or spread hate about people with disability and extend these protections to online spaces (such as social media).

• Explicitly make it unlawful to vilify a person or group of people with disability on the ground of their disability or perceived disability and strengthen provisions related to offensive behaviour. Model s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and define vilification to include behaviour that incites hatred or threatens violence toward a person or group of people with disability.
• Given the extremely damaging impact that harassment and offensive behaviour can have on people with a disability, it is essential that an effective mechanism for expediting the resolution of DDA complaints in this area is implemented. A person who has experienced harassment or offensive behaviour should not have to wait 6-12 months for their complaint to be dealt with and endure a continuation of the discriminatory behaviour during this time.
• BCA recently heard a very distressing account from a member detailing a serious assault from a stranger as they were exiting their vehicle in an accessible parking bay. The member also recalled previous examples of personal harm, “Usually when people assault me, they walk into me and expect me to get out of their way even though I clearly have a seeing eye dog. Back when I used a cane, people ran over [me] (in cars at zebra crossings, on bikes, and even once someone trod on my cane bending it so badly it was useless). People need to understand that

42 2020 Review of the Disability Standards for Education 2005 Final Report

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 29 of 48

this is also assault and causes injuries and pain to the person holding the cane.”

• Online harassment of people who are blind or vision impaired often manifests as ableist comments, cyberbullying related to assistive devices (e.g. dog guides, screen readers), content moderation failures, microaggression (e.g. “you don’t look blind”) or exclusion from digital spaces. BCA was distressed to hear of a Tiktok trend called Blindchallenge or Blindkidchallenge where people (primarily children) are encouraged to mock blind people in order to provide entertainment, win prizes and increase audience views.
• It’s imperative that the DDA cover offensive behaviour in online environments and more must be done to reinforce that such behaviour is unacceptable.
• The definition of public place in the DDA should include online spaces accessible to the public and accountability for online safety and expectations for service providers should align with the Online Safety Act 2021(Cth) (OSA).

“I believe this was a hate crime. I also believe this was done because this man believes he has superior entitlement and has the right to terrorise and assault a disabled woman. The law needs to change to better protect us, and we need a media campaign to reinforce understanding of laws and our rights.”

28. If the Disability Discrimination Act were to prohibit offensive behaviour and/or harassment, how should these terms be defined?

Use the same definition as in s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act or mirror the Equal Opportunity Act (Vic) to prohibit offensive behaviour and/or harassment.

29. Should there be exemptions for any behaviour, similar to the Racial Discrimination Act?

BCA acknowledges that s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act contains exemptions including where something is said or done in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work or for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose. BCA does not support the same exemption given that

43 “I Got Flagged for Supposed Bullying, Even Though It Was in Response to Someone Harassing Me About My Disability.”: A Study of Blind TikTokers’ Content Moderation Experiences | Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 44 Cornell Tech - Online Microaggressions Strongly Impact Disabled Users 45 Blind Citizens Australia (2025) DDA Consultation with members.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 30 of 48

people with a disability have often been belittled, disparaged, humiliated and offended under the guise of artistic expression.

30. Given the recent legislative developments, are there any further gaps in the legislative framework that could be addressed by amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act to protect people with disability from vilification?

No further comment.

Police and Justice

31. How could the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to ensure that it covers policing?

Recommendation: Include a new provision to cover policing and the justice system rather than including policing in the definition of services and equip staff to actively prevent and address disability discrimination.

• BCA supports amending the DDA to ensure all people with disability are protected from unlawful discrimination when engaging with police, regardless of the nature of that engagement.
• BCA agrees that police aren’t necessarily providing a ‘service’ to a suspect in the same way that other services are provided to people with disability. Instead of including policing in the definition of services as proposed by the DRC, including a new provision or provisions to cover policing and the justice system could clarify legal obligations, and strengthen measures to ensure people with disability do not experience less favourable treatment when engaged with the justice system.
• Police, as well as representatives of the broader justice system, must be equipped with the requisite knowledge and skills to engage with, and improve protection of people with disability and regular disability awareness training should be mandatory.
• People who are blind or vision impaired report they are often not respected or considered as a credible witness and are often placed at a disadvantage in the civil justice system, particularly in relation to appearing competent in cases involving children. Parents (and grandparents) who are blind often find it extremely difficult exercising their rights to access their children because their blindness is used as the reason to deny or limit their access.
• Legal and administrative documents are often in formats that are inaccessible for people who are blind or vision impaired which impedes privacy and independence in verifying information.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 31 of 48

All legal documents should be provided in a screen reader compatible Word document format.

While the DDA does not currently assign police a direct enforcement role and acknowledging that police are governed primarily by State/Territory legislation, Police are well placed to influence compliance and resolution of discriminatory practices under the Act. For example, Police are frequently called to intervene in instances of dog guide refusal between a dog guide handler and a duty holder (e.g. hotel, restaurant or taxi) and relevant State/Territory dog legislation permits issue of on-the-spot fines for dog guide refusals.

However, BCA advocacy staff report, “The police will often turn up and they’ll either give [the vision-impaired person] a link to human rights information, or they’ll say, ‘you’ve got to settle down here, we know you’re feeling passionate about this, but it will sort itself out.’ They don’t say to the alleged offender “You must understand that this action is unlawful, and you cannot do it’ and they don’t issue an infringement.”

32. Are there any specific circumstances or situations relating to policing or justice that should be excluded from the application of the Disability Discrimination Act?

No. There is already the defence of unjustifiable hardship.

Exemptions

33. Could any of the permanent exemptions be narrowed or updated, while balancing other policy considerations?

Yes. Recommendation: Remove the permanent exemption for actions taken under the Migration Act 1958 from the anti-discrimination provisions.

The exemption perpetuates ableism by allowing the migration system to treat people with disability as a burden based on projected health care and support costs rather than recognising their potential contributions to Australian society. It is not acceptable that skilled migrants with disability are denied permanent residency purely based on disability.

Denying visas based on disability undermines the intent and reform of the Act and the exemption contradicts Australia’s obligations under the CRPD.

Special measures

34. Should the Australian Human Rights Commission be given the power to grant special measures certificates?

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 32 of 48

Yes. Strengthen anti-discrimination protections by enabling proactive, targeted interventions to address systemic inequalities for people with disability through use of a certification process.

• Currently, the DDA permits special measures to allow positive discrimination to promote equality (e.g. providing exclusive resources or opportunities for disadvantaged groups) but lacks a formal certification process.
• Inconsistent application and underutilisation because of legal uncertainty inhibits effectiveness of the provision. Empowering the AHRC to grant certificates could provide legal clarity, promote proactive equality and enhance accountability.

35. Should a definition for special measures be added to the Disability Discrimination Act?

Yes. Include a clarifying definition for special measures to ensure they are interpreted as positive measures and align with international law obligations.

36. Should a definition for temporary exemptions be added to the Disability Discrimination Act?

Yes. Add a definition of ‘temporary exemption’ to provide further clarity and resolve confusion between temporary exemptions and special measures.

37. Would you recommend any changes to the legislative process of granting temporary exemptions?

Yes. Recommendation: Establish stricter oversight and evidence-based criteria to ensure temporary exemptions are exceptional and do not perpetuate exclusion of people with disability.

• The Act does not set out in any detail the criteria or procedures that the AHRC should use in considering applications for temporary exemption.
• While exemptions are necessary to support organisations transitioning to compliance, they should be granted only in exceptional cases where compliance is demonstrably unachievable in the short term. If exemptions are too readily approved, DDA protections are undermined.
• For example, submissions to the AHRC regarding multiple exemptions (since 2007) for the Australasian Railways Association cite various concerns including the impact of diminished access to public transport and exclusion of people with disability. Public transport is a

46 Australian Human Rights Commission, Free and Equal: An Australian Conversation on Human Rights, Australian Government, 2021, p 299. 47 Exemption applications under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) | Australian Human Rights Commission 48 Australasian Railway Association (ARA) | Australian Human Rights Commission

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 33 of 48

fundamental right, and a crucial service for people who are blind or vision impaired.

• Temporary exemptions should be limited per applicant, with heightened scrutiny for repeat applications. Applicants should be required to justify the need for further exemptions and provide evidence of efforts to minimise non-compliance impacts. Applicants should be obligated to work towards compliance in the period of their temporary exemption and be required to publicly report on progress during the period for which the temporary exemption is granted.

Assistance Animals

38. How could the protections for assistance animals be clarified for both people with disability and duty holders, including in relation to evidence of training, evidence or standards of hygiene and behaviour that are appropriate for a public place?

Recommendation: Implement nationally recognised assistance animal licenses for trainers, training organisations and handlers as proof of accreditation.

Recommendation: Prescribe accredited training organisations in the DDA regulations to remove any confusion around the legitimacy of assistance animals trained by these organisations.

Recommendation: Apply stronger penalties and consistent enforcement to any entity proven to have refused entry to a person with a disability because they use an assistance animal.

• People who are blind or vision impaired who use an assistance animal (dog guide) for mobility assistance often experience misunderstanding and discrimination when seeking to access premises including cafes and restaurants or use with on-demand transport services such as taxi and ride share.
• BCA routinely receives requests for advocacy support regarding dog guide refusal. Several cases have been reported via mainstream media including the experience of Lynn Potter at a motel in 2024 and Paralympian Jeremy Mclure in 2025 with Uber.
• Prevailing myths and patronising attitudes regarding dog guide training and their handling against people who are blind or vision impaired are coupled with continued disregard for

49 Pinjarra Resort motel refuses to allow guest to bring her seeing eye dog, despite laws prohibiting discrimination - ABC News 50 Paralympian Jeremy McClure refused multiple Uber rides with guide dog

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 34 of 48

protections under the DDA. The proliferation of assistance animals has exacerbated discrimination against dog guide handlers who are blind or vision impaired, leading to frequent refusals of access in public spaces, transport, and services.

• BCA agrees that a clear definition of assistance animals is required, alongside the application of a positive duty for all duty holders to prevent discrimination against people with disability who use a dog guide.
• BCA agrees that assistance animals should be trained by nationally or internationally accredited organisations such as Assistance Dogs International and International Guide Dogs Federation and that these organisations should be specified in the DDA Regulations.
• BCA supports introduction of a mandatory national license or identify document for simplified verification. Providing documentation that a dog guide is a trained and accredited assistance animal is useful to both dog guide handlers and the community.
• For the documentation to have practical effect, there must be nationwide recognition and acceptance of the identity document and dog guides. It is essential that after presenting the license, continued discrimination by duty holders does not occur. For example, the documentation should be accepted like a driver’s licence or proof of age card when entering a venue with age restrictions.
• Assistance animal regulations must be harmonised across federal, state, and territory levels to eliminate jurisdictional inconsistencies that amplify discrimination.
• Compliance and enforcement mechanisms should be strengthened and utilised such as issuing on the spot fines for dog guide refusal.

39. Would legislative amendments or guidance materials be helpful to balance flexibility and certainty, or a mixture of both?

A mixture of both, provided requirements are legislatively clear and enforceable.

• The DDA should incorporate and build upon the draft National Principles for the Regulation of Assistance Animals (released March 2025 by the Department of Social Services).
• Duty holders should be required to report on assistance animal access policies and mandatory disability awareness training should be undertaken by duty holders who breach obligations.

51 Department of Social Services, Draft National Principles for the Regulation of Assistance Animals (March 2025). https://www.dss.gov.au/disability-and-carers/draft-national-principles-regulation-assistance-animals.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 35 of 48

40. Should specific training organisations be prescribed under the Disability Discrimination Regulations?

Yes. The Regulations should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis to account for any changes in eligibility.

Disability Action Plans

41. Should there be minimum requirements for action plans (such as through guidelines) and what should the minimum requirements cover?

DAPs often lack specificity, accountability, and lived experience input, leading to inconsistent and ineffective implementation. There is often significant variability in the degree to which organisations value DAPs which is reflected in the level of effort put into their construction, activation and monitoring.

Improvements to DAPs should focus on measurability, co-design, and alignment with DDA reforms. There must be a requirement to demonstrate how the actions in the DAP promote the objects of the DDA and how they have been developed through consultation with the disability community. There must be a requirement for regular and public reporting on progress in implementing DAPs. The AHRC should be required to provide a list of organisations who have not met reporting requirements as part of the AHRC’s parliamentary reporting.

All DAPs should include SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time Bound) to be meaningful. Metrics could include:

• Positive duty measures to proactively address vision-specific barriers e.g. percentage of transport services with audio announcements, integration of Universal Design for Learning principles in education.
• Annual reporting on adjustments.
• Annual disability awareness training for all staff.
• Adoption of digital accessibility standards (e.g. WCAG 2.2 Level AA). KPIs for screen reader compatibility and audio descriptions. WCAG audits for digital inclusion.
• Annual reporting on dog guide access compliance.
• Regular consultation and co-design with people who are blind or vision impaired to ensure DAPs tackle systemic exclusion (e.g. inaccessible EdTech).
• KPIs for physical access.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 36 of 48

“I don’t think it’s good enough for [organisations] just to say that they’re complying. It has to be shown that they’re complying.”

42. Should the Australian Human Rights Commission be able to reject action plans that fail to meet these requirements?

Yes. Prevent the creation and use of superficial or inadequate DAPs that perpetuate systemic barriers for people who are blind or vision impaired.

43. Should there be a set period of time for which an action plan is valid?

Yes. A DAP should span 3-5 years (in line with an organisation’s Strategic Plan) to allow for planning, funding, and implementation, and include mandatory annual progress reports to track implementation, assess outcomes and adjust strategies as needed.

44. Are there any other changes to the action plan process that you would recommend?

No further comment.

Disability Standards

45. How could compliance with and enforcement of the Disability Standards be improved?

Recommendation: Improve the Disability Standards by introducing a positive (inclusive) duty, require reporting by duty holders and empower the AHRC to address non-compliance.

• BCA’s submission to the Productivity Commission emphasised that despite the DDA and Disability Standards, barriers in employment, education, or transport have not sufficiently been reduced. The DDA has achieved little in relation to the provision of information in accessible formats or the provision of a safe and accessible path of travel to, from and within buildings, and the Transport Standards have been undermined by individual transport operators choosing to apply access measures (such as tactile ground surface indicators) in an idiosyncratic way, rather than according to the agreed Standard. Exemption applications, many

52 Blind Citizens Australia (2025) DDA Consultation with members. 53 Blind Citizens Australia, Response to the Draft Report — Productivity Commission Inquiry into the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Submission DR269, May 2015)

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 37 of 48

of which are related to transport, continue to demonstrate that the Standards aren’t being upheld and the absence of any power to enforce compliance. It is the view of several BCA members that Disability Standards do not go far enough and should at most, be considered the minimum requirement.

• Duty holders must be able to understand their obligations under the DDA. The 2020 Review of the DSE revealed that many educators were unaware of their responsibilities under the DSE and/or did not have the information they need to implement them. The use of practical information and training products that explain the Disability Standards, examples of good practice, and detail on sector-specific requirements may help to ensure clarity and consistency in implementation.
• The effectiveness of Disability Standards is linked to their enforceability. Currently, a person with disability is responsible for making a complaint to the AHRC if a duty holder isn’t complying with the Standards and the AHRC does not have powers to enforce compliance.
• It is very difficult for a person with a disability to assess whether a particular barrier or situation they have encountered constitutes a breach of the Disability Standards. Except for the DSE, the Australian Standards frequently and normatively referenced in both the Transport and Premises Standards are not freely available and none of the referenced Australian Standards are available in accessible formats.
• Duty holders must be held to account for their obligations under the Disability Standards and meaningful penalties applied for non-compliance. The AHRC should be empowered to certify compliance with Disability Standards, audit DAPs and require State/Territory governments to check how well Standards are followed and publish reports on progress.
• BCA members reported how incredibly difficult it was as an individual making a complaint to challenge government agencies that were failing to comply with Disability Standards and their duties under the DDA.
• To support compliance, provision of tax or other incentives to organisations for meeting Disability Standards early should be considered, alongside funding options to reduce compliance barriers for small organisations.

46. 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?

54 humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/exemption-applications-under-disability-discrimination-act-1992-cth

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 38 of 48

Yes. Strengthen compliance with Disability Standards by mandating reporting in DAPs. A reporting framework would provide transparency and accountability mechanisms and encourages greater compliance. However, this must be supported by requisite review and remedial action for non-compliance.

47. Could the Australian Human Rights Commission provide additional guidance to duty holders regarding how to self-report on the Disability Standards in disability action plans?

Yes. Expand guidance to make self-reporting more robust, actionable, and aligned with proposed DDA reforms.

• The 2020 Review of the DSE revealed that self-reporting is often inconsistent and lacks depth, with stakeholders calling for clearer metrics and tools to demonstrate progress on DSE obligations like inclusive education.
• As noted previously, current DAPs lack quantifiable indicators, leading to vague reporting and poor outcomes. Templates would simplify compliance, improve consistency and support AHRC monitoring. Specific templates could be integrated into the DAP framework, with predefined metrics (e.g. percentage of digital learning materials compliant with WCAG 2.2 Level AA.)
• Duty holders cite resource constraints as a barrier, so consideration should be given to resourcing to provide free, accessible training (with captions, audio formats) to build capacity.
• Publish anonymised case studies showing effective self-reporting in DAPs, e.g. a university’s annual report on Braille/audio materials for students who are blind, or a school’s audit of tactile indicators for low vision navigation.
• Provide feedback loops including AHRC-generated reports on trends (e.g. common gaps in vision impairment adjustments) to inform future planning, and link with Australia’s Disability Strategy reporting and planning functions.

Further options for reform

48. Are there examples of legislative provisions in Commonwealth or state and territory anti-discrimination law that could be drawn on to modernise or strengthen the Disability Discrimination Act?

No further comment.

55 Australian Government (2020) Department of Education, Skills and Employment. Disability Standards for Education 2005 2020 Review Findings

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 39 of 48

49. What additional guidance materials should be provided to the community, including duty holders, about the operation of the Disability Discrimination Act or specific amendments proposed in this paper?

BCA recommends the creation of clear, accessible, and practical guidance to accompany the DDA.

The DDA and its accompanying guidance should be available in multiple accessible formats with updated materials released simultaneously in alternative formats to ensure equal access for everyone.

Plain language resources are necessary to explain the rights of people with disability and clarify legal concepts like positive duty and unjustifiable hardship. Explanations should be complemented by practical, real-world examples from various sectors, including communications and digital services.

Concise, focused resources should be developed for everyday service contexts, highlighting the obligations specific to each sector as well as the rights of consumers.

Guidance should clearly outline the enforcement frameworks and complaint mechanisms available under the DDA. Guidance material is most effective when it aims to clarify legislative or regulatory provisions; it is less effective when it is developed in areas where there is no legislative or regulatory certainty.

Guidance materials should be accompanied by a structured communication and awareness campaign with broad reach to ensure everyone understands what the legislation means, as well as targeted communication to duty holders and industry stakeholders to ensure understanding of obligations. There should be clear metrics to measure reach and effectiveness of the communication campaign.

Bold reform of the DDA is needed and must be accompanied by widespread community awareness and attitudinal change, as was the case for the Respect@work legislative reform.

50. How can we ensure the Disability Discrimination Act remains fit-for-purpose into the future?

Access to information

Recommendation: Explicitly recognise access to information as a separate area under the DDA.

Article 9 of the CRPD obliges signatories to take appropriate measures to ensure that people with disability have equal access to information and communication.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 40 of 48

• Although access to information can generally fit within the definition of a service, a new area of access to information should be added to the DDA as duty holders do not consider access to information as necessarily part of the provision of a good, service or facility.
• Access to information remains the area in which BCA has the greatest number of inquiries relating to discriminatory treatment. BCA is involved in complaints relating to access to billing information, mortgage and other loan agreements, financial information, prospectuses, books, websites, apps and other digital platforms.
• One of BCA’s most often repeated tasks is highlighting the inaccessibility of government websites, smartphone applications and documents, including NDIS plans and information. For example, if visual elements of a critical video are not described, people who are blind or vision impaired are denied access to information in a range of areas, including parenting, travel, safety, emergency warnings, contact information and products.
• The DDA currently lacks explicit provisions that compel broadcasters to provide accessible services such as Audio Description. BCA has long campaigned for the mandatory inclusion of audio description on Australian broadcast and catch-up television, highlighting its absence as a significant barrier to accessibility for blind and vision-impaired individuals, constituting systemic discrimination under the DDA. Television is a vital source of information and entertainment, and lack of audio description excludes people who are blind or vision impaired from details conveyed visually.
• In September 2022, the UN Committee found Australia had failed to comply with its obligations under the CRPD because it has not taken appropriate measures to identify and eliminate barriers to accessibility to ensure people who are blind or vision-impaired can enjoy equal access to television programs. While some progress has been made, the Australian Government’s failure to guarantee the provision of audio description on free-to-air television is ongoing.
• The updated DDA should designate broadcasting licence holders as duty holders, requiring them to take action to ensure all Australians have equal access to cultural and informational content.

56 Blind Citizens Australia. (2022). Submission to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability — Audio Description

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 41 of 48

“The DDA issues I feel strongest about are the right of access to information and the practical means by which an individual can hope to rectify lack of access to information. If owners of websites could be enforced to certify that their websites are accessible, not just a tick a box exercise of having run it through some program, but by certified user testing, that would be wonderful. Similarly for digital platforms and phone apps. Access to information should be a basic human right, not the throw away crumbs we are currently offered.”

Digital accessibility

Recommendation: Explicitly include digital goods and services and digital information communication technologies under the DDA, and designate providers of digital goods and services as duty holders.

Recommendation: Mandate Digital Accessibility Standards under the DDA

• A growing barrier to the inclusion of blind and vision-impaired Australians is the development and use of inaccessible digital goods, services, and technologies that fail to address needs and limit social, economic and cultural participation.
• Accessibility of digital goods and services for people who are blind or vision impaired depends on whether the digital service is navigable, readable, and usable and there are many ways technology can fail to be inclusive. For example, touchscreens without tactile features, buttons which are not labelled, verification requiring CAPTCHA, graphics and photos without image descriptions, provision of inaccessible PDF instead of text-based documents, videos without audio description, and webpages where elements are not labelled.
• Vendors and providers of essential services are increasingly requiring people to utilise digital goods and services to undertake daily living tasks such as book medical appointments, apply for employment or housing, use automated/self-service terminals, or purchase and operate products (e.g. home appliances with touchscreens and digital apps).
• The AHRC’s Human Rights and Technology Final Report emphasised that digital inaccessibility, such as non-compliant websites and apps, significantly contributes to disability discrimination particularly for blind and vision impaired people. The AHRC highlighted that

57 BCA Consultation to inform DDA Submission 2025 58 Australian Human Rights Commission. (2021). Human Rights and Technology Final Report

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 42 of 48

offering services digitally does not automatically guarantee accessibility.

• More needs to be done to reinforce that discrimination in digital environments is unlawful, with stronger, clearer digital obligations and consequences for non-compliance required. Essential service products must be designed with Universal Design Principles and promote independent use by all people, including those with disability. Providers of digital goods and services should be explicitly designated as duty holders under the DDA.
• BCA welcomed the introduction of the Guidelines on Equal Access to Digital Goods and Services. However, as the Guidelines are not legally binding it’s our view that the DDA should go further and establish Digital Accessibility Disability Standards. Mandatory, implementable, and enforceable Standards could provide certainty for duty holders in understanding what is required to comply with the DDA and reduce confusion for developers and service providers. Given the rapid, evolving nature of technology, the Standards would need to be future proofed to prevent them from quickly becoming outdated. For example, avoid naming specific versions or technologies and instead reference external technical guidelines and build in regular review.
• Despite the existence of anti-discrimination legislation in all Australian jurisdictions and the availability of many excellent resources on how apps, websites and social media can be made accessible for all, accessibility and useability issues persist. The current Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) enable digital technologies to meet internationally recognised accessibility standards and ensure usability by people who are blind or vision impaired, yet a 2023 WebAim review of websites found that 96.3% contained errors that impact assistive technology users, including those with screen readers (e.g. JAWS, NVDA).
• BCA regularly hears of employers using inaccessible job application systems and workplace software programs that exclude people who are blind and vision impaired, healthcare services using inaccessible patient information systems, and inaccessible digital platforms frequently contribute to education and service discrimination complaints (e.g. a student who is blind who faces exclusion from online learning due to non-compliant EdTech). A Vision Australia report into the online learning experience of university students who are blind or vision impaired

59 Australian Human Rights Commission (2025). Guidelines on equal access to digital goods and services. Sydney: Australian Human Rights Commission 60 WebAIM. (2023). The WebAIM Million: An annual accessibility analysis of the top 1,000,000 home pages 61 Blind Citizens Australia, Disability Royal Commission Submission (2022). Promoting Inclusion Issues Paper: Technology https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/submission/ISS.001.00630.PDF

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 43 of 48

found the prevalence and extent of barriers represent a systemic failure by the university sector to develop and deploy online learning environments in ways that adequately address the needs of students.

• Effective mechanisms for reporting and redressing accessibility failures in digital technologies and online services are currently lacking and without explicit requirements for compliance with Standards, enforcement under the DDA is reliant on individual complaints and judicial interpretation which results in inconsistent accessibility outcomes.
• Parties to the CRPD are obligated to take measures to identify and eliminate barriers to accessibility, including for technology, and to promote minimum accessibility standards. Article 4 promotes universal design in the development, availability and use of goods, services, and facilities to enhance accessibility, and Article 9 states that governments must ensure that people with disability have equal access to the physical environment, transportation, and information and communications technologies.
• BCA supports calls for all Australian government agencies to procure accessible information communication technology.
• Australia is falling behind international best practice. The European Accessibility Act (2019) mandates that digital products and services—including e-commerce, banking apps, and transport booking platforms—must be accessible to people with disabilities. Duty holders include manufacturers, service providers, and distributors. Similarly, The U.S. Department of Justice has affirmed that websites are places of public accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Canada’s Accessible Canada Act (2019) requires federally regulated entities to remove barriers in digital services.
• As noted in the AHRC’s Human Rights and Technology Final Report along with Disability Standards, additional regulation is also needed to protect the functional accessibility of goods, services and facilities that rely on digital communication technology. BCA supports the AHRC’s recommendation that Standards Australia, in consultation with disability advocates, should create a Technical Specification or Australian Standard for accessible product documentation (user guides, instructions, and manuals) to accompany digital goods and services (and make it

62 Vision Australia. (2018). Report - Online, But Offtrack 63 United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 64 ACCAN. National Disability Strategy (Policy submission, Department of Social Services, 30 October 2020) 6; ACCAN, Public Procurement of Accessible Information and Communications Technology (Community position paper, May 2022). 65 Australian Human Rights Commission. (2021). Human Rights and Technology Final Report

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 44 of 48

freely available). This would ensure that accessibility is not only built into the products and services themselves but also into the information needed to use them.

“Public and private hospitals need to do better when it comes to providing patients with information. They persist in sending paperwork through the post and have kiosks with touch screens and no audio feedback for registering attendance at clinics, for example.”

Complaints, compliance and penalties

Recommendation: Resource and empower the AHRC with the authority to monitor compliance, conduct audits, and investigate complaints promptly.

Efforts to strengthen the DDA will be ineffective unless the mechanisms for monitoring compliance and taking meaningful action on breaches are reformed.

• BCA is aware that many people avoid the process of making a disability discrimination complaint due to lack of self-confidence, advocacy experience, technical knowledge, and financial and emotional resources, further compounded by fears of retaliation or stigma in small communities or workplaces. Timelines are often protracted (6-12mths) with delays resulting in complainants giving up.
• BCA members report challenges in getting access to both legal advice and legal representation, and being forced to prepare complaints without adequate knowledge or experience.
• BCA’s DRC submission on audio description provides a detailed account of the challenges faced by Ms Lauren Henley in making a complaint under the DDA to the AHRC (and subsequently to the CRPD Committee).
• The AHRC’s conciliation process is seen as daunting and intimidating. Complainants often face respondents with significantly greater power and resources (including lawyers and technical staff), and report feeling overwhelmed, especially when explaining technical issues.
• Pursuing complaints, especially if escalated to the Federal Court, involves legal fees or expert

66 Australian Human Rights Commission, Human rights and technology final report: summary (Summary, 2021) 67 BCA Consultation to inform DDA Submission 2025 (unpublished) 68 Blind Citizens Australia. (2022). Submission to the Disability Royal Commission: Audio Description

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 45 of 48

reports (e.g. on website accessibility) which people on limited incomes cannot afford. The AHRC’s lack of funding for legal assistance exacerbates this.

• Voluntary conciliation and reluctance of the AHRC to use the powers given to it under S.46PJ(3) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 to require attendance at a conciliation conference undermines the DDA and fails people with disability.
• Following a breach, change is slow and there is little evidence to suggest that conciliation outcomes are used to influence systemic change. Conciliation agreements are often confidential, restricting visibility of repeat offenders, and limiting promotion of precedents in setting applicable penalties.
• There are no repercussions, penalties for non-compliance with conciliation outcomes or robust mechanisms to ensure respondents implement agreed changes, leaving complainants to monitor compliance themselves. Even when complaints succeed, outcomes are often weak (e.g. apologies or minor changes without penalties), failing to deter future discrimination.
• BCA supports the recommendations outlined in the AHRC’s Free and Equal Project to include more effective enforcement powers for the AHRC including audits, own-motion investigations, compliance notices, enforceable undertakings and applications to the Court to require compliance. There should be a greater emphasis on systemic discrimination placing less pressure on individual complainants, increased efforts to build and support a culture of prevention, and a review of funding for community legal centres and legal aid to ensure adequate resources to support people with disability.
• The AHRC should be sufficiently empowered and resourced to investigate patterns of discrimination and take proactive action. There needs to be much greater transparency in complaint outcomes and visibility of duty holders that are repeat offenders.

“I’ve had the experience of going through the Human Rights Commission with no satisfactory outcome. There was no follow-up at all. It just ended, and I think that’s a huge problem for us.”

69 Free and Equal: An Australian conversation on human rights | Australian Human Rights Commission 70 Blind Citizens Australia (2025) DDA Consultation with members.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 46 of 48

“I was going to take a [discrimination] complaint that I had against an organisation to the Federal court, because I got nowhere in the Commission. But I was told by the legal advisor, with whom I eventually spoke, that it would cost me up to $50,000. Who can afford that?”

Recommendation: Impose meaningful penalties for non-compliance with the DDA to deter violations.

• Currently, the DDA relies on complaint-based conciliation through the AHRC, with limited escalation to civil remedies like compensation or injunctions, resulting in weak accountability and persistent non-compliance.
• In contrast, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) wield statutory powers to impose fines up to $50 million or 10% of annual turnover for serious breaches, as seen in the ACCC’s $120 million penalty on Qantas in 2024 for misleading consumers. This model demonstrates that financial sanctions can drive cultural change.
• Imposing significant penalties on duty holders who breach the DDA could enhance deterrence, promote compliance, and contribute to achieving substantive equality. Penalties would address the AHRC’s ‘toothless’ reputation, where breaches like refusing dog guide access often go unpunished. The DRC Recommendation 7.19 (2023) explicitly calls for an empowered AHRC with penalty powers for non-compliance, noting that without them, systemic discrimination persists.
• Introducing tiered fines (e.g. scaled by entity turnover) would incentivise proactive measures, deter violations and could fund redress (e.g. accessibility grants), fostering a preventive culture like the ACCC’s impact on consumer markets.

“There is almost no use in even getting a positive outcome from a [AHRC] decision in your favour as a complainant, because chances are it’s not going to be enforced anyway. That’s the problem at the moment I think. If an organisation knew there

71 Blind Citizens Australia (2025) DDA Consultation with members. 72 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s1311; Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) s76

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 47 of 48

was going to be a substantial fine they would weigh up their obligations in the first place.”

Accessibility of AHRC complaints system

Recommendation: Reform the AHRC discrimination complaints process to be fully accessible for people who are blind or vision impaired.

• People who are blind or vision impaired struggle to navigate the AHRC’s online complaint lodgement system and website independently, compromising autonomy and privacy. Submitting evidence (e.g. screenshots of inaccessible websites or detailed descriptions of discrimination) can be challenging for complainants who may not easily access or interpret visual data, requiring technical support they may not have.
• The AHRC must ensure complaint lodgement and processing systems are compliant with the latest WCAG and compatible with assistive technologies (e.g. screen readers), that materials are provided in accessible formats (e.g. Braille, audio, Word document, large print), and procedural requirements are simple, reducing any barriers to independent access and participation by people who are blind or vision impaired.

(End of document)

73 Blind Citizens Australia (2025) DDA Consultation with members.

Blind Citizens Australia | Page 48 of 48