Assessment of Disability Discrimination Act 1992 reforms for small businesses

Small Business Development Corporation
GOVERNMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Our ref: D25/10493

Disability Discrimination Act Reviewers
Attorney-General’s Department
Robert Garran Offices
3-5 National Circuit
BARTON ACT 2600

DDAReview@ag.gov.au

Dear Reviewers

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 REVIEW

Thank you for the invitation to comment on the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) Review. The Small Business Development Corporation (SBDC) believes this is important work for improving the lives and opportunities for people with disabilities in Australia.

Background

The SBDC is an independent statutory authority1 of the Government of Western Australia, established to support and facilitate the growth and development of small businesses in the State. Small businesses account for nearly 97 per cent of all businesses in the State and contribute more than $50 billion to the Western Australian economy each year.

Through our various touchpoints with small businesses, the SBDC is able to monitor the Western Australian small business landscape and constructively contribute to government reviews and policy development. In this regard, a core function of the SBDC is to work with regulators during legislative design and reform processes to ensure the voice of small business is considered wherever possible.

In formulating this submission, the SBDC has also consulted with a range of government, not-for-profit and service provision organisations to seek their views on the proposed legislative changes and their experience and feedback on assisting people with disabilities into employment in small businesses in Western Australia. Refer to Attachment 1 for details of the organisations engaged.

1 The views presented here are those of the SBDC and not necessarily those of the Western Australian Government.

smallbusiness.wa.gov.au redacted

Response

The SBDC has assessed the key implications for small business from the proposed reforms to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) outlined in the Issues Paper, including likely impacts and risks. The main concerns the SBDC has identified include:

• The compliance burden is relatively heavier for smaller organisations, with small businesses tending to have fixed overheads, limited legal and financial capacity, and less access to specialised advisors. The Federal Government’s own guidance on small business impact analysis warns that small businesses are more vulnerable to compliance cost burdens and should be given special consideration under the proposed reforms.
• Some reforms may yield benefits to small businesses: improving clarity of obligations reduces legal risk, better guidance and tools could lower compliance uncertainty, and more inclusive environments may expand markets and clientele.
• Transitional measures, thresholds (by size, revenue, sector) and scaling obligations proportionately will be critical to ensure reforms are feasible and not unduly burdensome on the smallest businesses.
• The need for clear, accessible guidance, templates, training, and regulatory support is repeatedly emphasised in the Issues Paper. For smaller duty holders, that support will likely be essential if reforms are to succeed in practice.
• There is a risk of liability traps (for example, if a small business fails to proactively monitor, audit or self-report, or misses incremental obligations introduced by the positive duty). Ensuring “reasonableness” is judged with regard to business size and capacity will be crucial.

Refer to Attachment 2 for a more detailed assessment.

In Western Australia, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA (CCIWA) has been funded by the State Government to deliver Ability Link, a program that aims to work closely with small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to enhance their capacity to employ individuals with disabilities. As part of the initiative, CCIWA engages in consultations with people with disabilities, their carers and service providers to identify what is needed for a successful transition into the workforce. A key objective of Ability Link is to provide clarity on available support services and streamline access to these services for both employers and employees.

To support this program, the SBDC notes that CCIWA recently commissioned a research survey of Western Australian SMEs to uncover insights. Delivered in April 2025, the report found:

• Inclusivity and diversity matter – especially among younger, female-led businesses, and businesses with prior experience employing people with disabilities.
• Confidence is low – most businesses feel only somewhat confident or not confident about hiring a person with disability, especially in regional areas and in small businesses.
• Prior exposure makes a difference – businesses that have engaged someone with a disability before are more willing and better equipped to do it again.
• Business size plays a part – larger businesses (20+ employees) are more confident, better resourced, and more likely to have policies or infrastructure in place.

2

• Industry differences are real – community services, education, and hospitality sectors are most receptive; construction, manufacturing, and resource industries present more barriers due to physical job demands and a perceived lack of relevant roles.
• There’s a big opportunity, but small businesses need a push – about half of businesses have no experience yet and many express concerns around job suitability, cost, and lack of knowledge.

See Attachment 3 for more detailed information on the survey participants, results and conclusions

The Western Australian Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC) has also contributed a summary of the complaints and enquiries made to it from 2020-21 to 2024-25, highlighting the specific area of disability discrimination.

Disability (or impairment) is the most common ground for both complaints and enquiries received by the EOC, with employment being the predominant area of concern. Physical disabilities and mental health/psychosocial conditions together account for approximately 75-80% of impairment types reporting disability discrimination.

See Attachment 4 for more detailed information on the EOC survey participants, results and conclusions.

Based on this assessment of the implications of the items raised in the Issues Paper, together with the survey results from the CCIWA and the information provided by the EOC, the SBDC proposes a number of recommendations to ensure the proposed reforms best meet the needs of the small business sector.

Recommendations to help small businesses

1. Proportionate Obligations

The proposed reforms should be applied in a way that reflects the size, resources, and operational capacity of the duty holder. Small businesses often have limited administrative capacity, legal expertise, and financial resources compared to larger corporations or public sector entities. Imposing identical compliance duties across all entities could create disproportionate burdens that undermine the policy’s fairness and practicality. The legislation or accompanying regulations could include “scaling” provisions – such as thresholds based on employee numbers or annual turnover – to ensure compliance expectations are proportionate.

Proportionate regulation is also more likely to secure voluntary compliance and goodwill from small business owners. When duties are perceived as fair, feasible, and clearly aligned with business capacity, small businesses are more likely to adopt inclusive practices willingly rather than viewing the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) as a compliance risk. Aligning with the Office of Impact Analysis’ small business guidance, this approach would help achieve policy objectives while minimising unnecessary red tape.

3

2. Phased Implementation & Transitional Relief

Introducing major obligations such as a positive duty, self-reporting, or stronger enforcement mechanisms should be accompanied by a phased or staged rollout. Transitional arrangements – such as a 12-to-24-month adjustment period – would allow smaller enterprises time to understand the policies and obligations and budget for and make the necessary adjustments to their workplace processes. This approach mirrors best practice from other regulatory reforms (for example, the introduction of new privacy, workplace safety, or Fair Work amendments) where early education and deferred enforcement help to achieve smooth adoption.

Phased implementation also enables governments and regulators to test the reforms, identify unintended consequences, and refine guidance before obligations become mandatory. For example, initial “soft start” periods could involve voluntary reporting, education campaigns, and collaborative compliance support rather than punitive enforcement. This would build confidence and capability across the small business sector while preserving the integrity of the reform’s objectives.

3. Strong Support Infrastructure

Effective implementation of the revised Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) will depend heavily on the quality and accessibility of supporting tools and resources. Small businesses typically lack dedicated human resources or legal departments to interpret complex legislative duties. As such, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations should play a leading role in providing plain-language guidance, model policies, checklists and templates, online training materials, and access to expert advice in order to reduce confusion and help businesses get it right the first time.

Support could also take the form of a “one-stop” online portal or helpline, similar to those provided for workplace relations and work health and safety compliance. Such infrastructure would help small businesses understand what constitutes “reasonable adjustment”, how to assess “unjustifiable hardship”, and how to meet any new positive duty obligations. Investment in this ecosystem of support would significantly reduce compliance anxiety and the perceived risk of inadvertent breaches.

4. Clear Definition of “Reasonable” & “Unjustifiable Hardship”

Many small business concerns stem from uncertainty about where legal obligations begin and end. The current Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) already includes the concept of “unjustifiable hardship”, but in practice this is often contested and difficult to interpret. A clearer, codified list of factors – such as the size of the business, nature of its operations, cost of the adjustment, and availability of financial assistance – would improve predictability and reduce litigation risk.

This clarity benefits both people with disability and businesses by fostering open, good-faith dialogue rather than adversarial disputes. When small business owners can confidently assess their responsibilities, they are more likely to engage constructively in making reasonable accommodations. Clear statutory language, supported by authoritative examples and case summaries, would thus support both equity and efficiency in compliance.

4

5. Safe Harbours & Compliance Incentives

Creating formal “safe harbours” would allow small businesses to demonstrate compliance by following approved standards, templates, or codes of practice. If a business has adopted an official disability action plan or completed approved training, it should be presumed to have met its positive duty obligations unless there is clear evidence otherwise. This approach reduces compliance uncertainty and encourages proactive behaviour rather than reactive legal defence.

Complementing this, incentive mechanisms – such as small business grants, tax offsets, or public recognition programs – could help defray the costs of making physical or digital accessibility improvements. Encouraging compliance through recognition and support, rather than solely through sanctions, aligns with best practice in behavioural regulation and improves overall policy uptake.

6. Monitoring and Review Mechanism

Given the scale of potential reform, it is important that the revised Act includes a mechanism to monitor its real-world impacts on small business and review outcomes periodically. A formal review clause (say, after three years of operation) would allow the Government to assess whether obligations are proportionate and whether small business compliance costs are reasonable. This could draw on data from the AHRC, small business surveys, and regulatory impact monitoring.

Regular review also promotes continuous improvement and policy responsiveness. If the monitoring process reveals systemic issues (for example, rising complaint rates or compliance fatigue among small operators), the Government could adjust guidance, funding, or enforcement practices accordingly. Embedding review into the legislation demonstrates a commitment to evidence-based policymaking and builds small business confidence that their concerns will continue to be heard.

7. Engagement & Consultation with Small Business Sector

Small businesses should be directly represented in ongoing consultation on both legislative drafting and the development of supporting standards or guidance. Their practical experience – especially from the retail, hospitality, and service sectors – will be critical to designing workable obligations. Early engagement helps to identify potential unintended consequences, streamline compliance pathways, and build trust in the reform process.

A co-design approach – where small business and disability advocates jointly shape guidance materials – will produce more realistic, usable, and widely accepted outcomes.

8. Explicit Small Business Impact Analysis

All significant amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) should be subject to a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that explicitly considers small business effects. This includes both compliance costs (including training, reporting, physical modifications) and potential benefits (such as expanded customer base, reduced complaints, improved workplace culture). Quantifying these impacts will help government identify where support or adjustment is needed.

5

The Office of Impact Analysis already requires regulators to consider small business impacts in new regulatory proposals. Integrating this process early, before drafting regulations, ensures that obligations are proportionate and practical. Transparent publication of this analysis will also reassure stakeholders that small business realities have been taken into account in policy design.

9. Communication & Awareness Campaigns

Even with strong laws and clear guidance, success depends on awareness and understanding among small business owners. Many are unfamiliar with the current provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), and compliance is often reactive or complaint-driven. A national communication campaign would raise awareness of rights and responsibilities, promote inclusion as good business practice, and highlight the commercial benefits of accessible and diverse workplaces.

Communication strategies could include short online modules, industry webinars, social media campaigns, and collaboration with local chambers of commerce and small business associations. Using trusted intermediaries — like the SBDC, accountants, local councils, and small business hubs — would help reach time-poor operators who might not engage with formal legal updates. Sustained communication, rather than one-off publicity, is essential to achieving long-term behavioural change and embedding inclusive practices across the small business ecosystem.

Concluding remarks

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Consultation Paper. The SBDC hopes that the review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) will create new opportunities for people living with disabilities to more fulsomely engage in employment and be an effective mechanism for positive change within the wider community through the provision of regulation and information tailored to achieve best possible outcomes. The SBDC would welcome being further involved in providing advice as part of the consultation process for the development of detailed rules, standards, and guidance materials.

If you would like to discuss this submission in more detail, please contact redacted Senior Policy and Advocacy Officer, on redacted or at redacted

Yours sincerely

redacted

Small Business Commissioner

27 October 2025

6

ATTACHMENT 1

Organisations Consulted in the Formulation of this Submission

• WA Office of Disability, Department of Communities

Provides disability sector stewardship and drives work and innovation to advance inclusion and participation of people with disability in Western Australia, empowering them to participate in all aspects of the community and the economy by implementing the State Disability Strategy.

• WA Equal Opportunity Commission

Working to make Western Australia free from discrimination and prejudice, including for people with disabilities.

• Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia (CCIWA) – Ability Link

Pilot initiative run on behalf of the Western Australian Government aimed at increasing employment opportunities for people with disabilities within small to medium enterprises (SMEs).

• Good Sammy Enterprises

Not-for-profit organisation that among other things creates employment opportunities for Western Australians with disability.

• Buddiup

Not-for-profit organisation providing meaningful opportunities for people with disability to live a healthier life and develop social connections through heath, relationships, community, and learning.

• Inclusion Solutions

Not-for-profit organisation offering training, mentoring and consultancy services, working to strengthen communities of all shapes and sizes, creating spaces where all people feel welcome and included for who they are.

• Kiind

Not-for-profit organisation providing practical assistance, emotional support, connection to other families and help to find the most appropriate services and supports for children with disabilities and their families.

1

ATTACHMENT 2

Key Likely Impacts & Risks for Small Businesses from Proposed Reforms

An assessment of key areas of risk, opportunity, and mitigation of those reforms are most likely to affect small businesses.

Reform area	Potential impact on small businesses	Key risk / challenge	Mitigating factors / support options
Positive duty	- May impose proactive obligations (e.g. to audit operations, review policies, train staff, monitor accessibility, put in place preventive adjustments)	- Additional burden that many smaller businesses may lack the capacity (legal, financial, human resources) to anticipate and plan proactive compliance	- Government could provide phased implementation, threshold cut-offs (e.g. positive duty only above a certain size), tailored guidance, templates, subsidies, compliance assistance
Duty to make adjustments	- Smaller businesses may be required to make structural or operational adjustments (e.g. physical modifications, alternative communication modes, flexible processes)	- The cost burden may be proportionally higher, and uncertainty about what is “reasonable” may deter business risk - Small business tenants may be limited by their lease agreement in terms of what adjustments they could make	- Clearer criteria, guidance, safe harbours or caps, and clarity on “unjustifiable hardship” will reduce uncertainty
Definition changes & interpretation shifts	- Expanding definitions or adopting more favourable interpretation (for complainants) may increase exposure to liability or complaints	- Businesses may unknowingly fall within coverage where previously not, or be exposed to increased litigation risk	- Transition periods, clarity in regulations or standards, liability caps, (accessible and affordable) dispute resolution pathways
Harassment / offensive behaviour provisions	- Businesses (especially customer-facing, retail, small service providers) may face increased obligations to monitor customer and staff interactions, respond to complaints, adopt policies	- Risk of claims arising from ambiguous definitions of harassment or vilification	- Clear guidance (including clarity of definitions), safe harbours, procedural requirements (e.g. notice / opportunity to remedy) before legal claim

1

Reform area	Potential impact on small businesses	Key risk / challenge	Mitigating factors / support options
Exemptions narrowing	- If certain carveouts are removed or narrowed, small businesses may lose protections previously available	- More businesses lose protections, especially those operating in sectors with exemptions (e.g. migration, clubs, small nonprofits)	- Transitional arrangements, tailored thresholds, grandfathering exemptions
Enforcement / compliance / reporting	- Requirements to self-report, audit, maintain records, or submit action plans may add administrative / regulatory burden	- For very small businesses, compliance costs (time, admin) may be disproportionate and excessive	- Simplified reporting formats, de minimis thresholds, exempting very small entities, offering compliance support or subsidised advisory services
Unjustifiable hardship standard	- If the test for hardship is made stricter or narrower, small businesses may find fewer defences available when unable to comply with adjustments	- Legal risk and uncertainty over what qualifies as hardship - Additional cost and compliance associated with meeting newly imposed standards	- Clear statutory / regulatory factors, guidelines, precedents, safe harbour provisions
Guidance, monitoring & standards enforcement	- Increased expectation that small businesses conform to standards (e.g. premises, communication, digital accessibility) may require investment or process changes	- If standards become tightly enforceable, risk of sanctions or litigation for non-compliance	- Phased rollouts, assistance programs, clear stepwise compliance paths, variation for small businesses

2

ATTACHMENT 3

Chamber of Commerce and Industry Western Australia – Ability Link\

April 2025

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH REPORT OUTCOMES

Research Objectives:

1. Understand how important inclusivity and diversity is to WA SMEs.
2. Understand how prepared WA SMEs are to employ or otherwise engage people with disabilities.
3. Understand which forms of engagement are most feasible to small businesses, and which forms would require further support.
4. Understand the motivators and barriers to SMEs employing or otherwise engaging people with disabilities.
5. Understand how all of the above differ across industries and other profiling variables.

Research Profile:

• Research was undertaken in March 2025 with 314 small business respondents from around Western Australia.
• Respondent Demographics – a mix of genders, age groups and locations.
• Business Profiling – most of the sample is from small and established businesses, including those in the Retail Trade, Construction, and Manufacturing industries, and included regional and metropolitan businesses.
• For the purposes of this survey disability means an intellectual, psychiatric, cognitive, neurological, sensory, or physical impairment or a combination of those impairments.

Current Situation:

• Half of the respondents believe inclusivity and diversity are important to their business strategy with 1 in 5 rating it as extremely important.
• Perceived importance of inclusivity and diversity is higher among females and younger age groups. Males are more likely to state this is ‘not at all important’ compared to females.
• Those in Perth are more likely to rate this as ‘extremely important’ compared to those living in Regional WA.
• Young female SME owners are the most likely to believe inclusivity and diversity are important to their business rating this as ‘extremely important’.
• Perceived importance also grows with business size.
• Inclusivity is also perceived as more important in certain industries, significantly Hospitality and Recreation. Community and Social Services (including Education, Health Care and Public Administration and Safety) also show stronger support for inclusivity and diversity.
• Businesses tend to be more likely to perceive themselves as disability friendly towards customers more so than employees. 3 in 4 agree their business is disability friendly for customers, compared to 3 in 5 who say the same for employees. 58% agreed to both statements, indicating high crossover, but still highlighting a gap.
• Certain industries are more likely to perceive their business as disability friendly to customers and employees. Hospitality and Recreation businesses are significantly more likely to agree they’re disability friendly to both customers and employees, whereas those in Construction & Manufacturing or Primary & Resource Industries are less likely.
• The longer the business has been established, the more likely it is to agree they are disability friendly, specifically towards customers. Business size is also more likely to align with disability friendliness towards both customers and employees.

1

Unsurprisingly, prior experience employing people with disabilities and a strong commitment to diversity increases a business’s likelihood of describing itself as disability friendly for both customers and employees. Suggesting that prior exposure or a strong organisational commitment to diversity and inclusion are key factors that drive the willingness and practical implementation of disability friendly practices.

While more than half of SMEs surveyed believe their workplace is disability friendly, a clear gap remains between sentiment and actual employment or engagement of people with disabilities

• In Western Australia, around 1 in 5 people (or ~411,500 people) have some form of disability.
• There’s approximately ~250,000 working-age people with disability in WA.
• Labour force participation rate for people with disability aged 15-64 rose to 60.5% in 2022 (continuing to be below the labour force participation rate for people without disability is 84.9%).
• There’s approximately 246,661 actively trading businesses in Western Australia.
• Assuming the ideal situation, that all working-age people with disability are able and willing to work, for full employment in this group, every business would need to employ at least 1 person with a disability.

4 in 10 state that at some point in time their business has employed or engaged someone with a disability, while 3 in 10 are currently employing or engaging a person with a disability. Overall, half of the sample has either previous or current experience with people with disabilities in the workplace.

Businesses that place a high importance on inclusivity and diversity are also more likely to have direct experience reinforcing the link between organisational values and action. Those who disagree inclusivity and diversity are important in their business strategy (35%) have had previous or current experience with people with disabilities, while those who agree inclusivity and diversity are important in their business strategy (58%) have had previous or current experience with people with disabilities.

Around 1 in 6 state their business has made workplace modifications or adjustments to accommodate employees with disabilities and a further 1 in 4 state their business would be willing to make adjustments in the future. Among those with prior experience, around 3 in 10 stated they have already made adjustments, with a further 1 in 3 stating they would be willing to.

Female owners are more likely to have adjustments already in place. Younger business owners are more open and willing to make changes in the future, but not necessarily to have made these adjustments already.

1 in 4 stated their business has policies or processes in place to support employees with disabilities. This increases to 2 in 5 among those with prior experience but drops to less than 1 in 10 among those without previous exposure.

Business size plays a part, with larger businesses more likely to have formal policies in place compared to smaller businesses.

Awareness of government or industry support programs related to disability employment is low. This is likely a key reason why the majority of SMEs are not currently accessing any support. Improving awareness, especially among businesses that already value inclusivity, represents a clear opportunity to increase engagement and support uptake.

Almost no businesses without prior experience employing people with a disability have accessed this support. Among businesses who consider inclusivity and diversity and employment important but don’t have prior experience employing someone with a disability, 41% didn’t even know this support was available.

This presents a clear opportunity to a) promote the existing support to those already open to employment, and b) ensure that the support goes to those without previous experience (given this is a major barrier to openness).

2

Opportunities:

• Confidence in hiring or engaging a person with a disability is generally low among SMEs with the majority feeling only somewhat confident or not at all confident. Confidence increases among those who consider inclusivity and diversity important to their strategy compared to those that do not. Confidence also builds with prior experience employing or engaging people with disabilities.
• Most businesses aren’t confident in hiring or engaging a person with a disability, regardless of industry. With Construction & Manufacturing and Other industries having the lowest levels of perceived confidence and Primary & Resource industries and Trade & Logistics having comparatively higher confidence levels.
• Young female owners are among the most confident groups, reflecting broader patterns observed earlier.
• Confidence aligns closely with previous trends. Businesses with prior exposure and a strong commitment to inclusivity are more likely to feel capable of successfully hiring or engaging people with disabilities. Building practical experience and reinforcing organisational values around inclusivity are critical levers for increasing SME confidence in disability employment.
• Despite relatively low confidence levels, SMEs are generally open and interested in initiatives aimed at supporting people with disabilities in the workplace. 1 in 3 businesses indicated interest in training and upskilling employees to better support disability inclusion. There is around one third who are fence-sitters, expressing somewhat interested sentiment across all proposed initiatives.
• Those living in Perth are significantly more likely to be interested in training and upskilling compared to those living in the rest of WA. Younger business owners, specifically young female owners, consistently show the highest levels of interest, followed by young male owners.
• Multiple industries are interested in training and upskilling employees to support disability in the workplace. Interest in these initiatives also grows with business size suggesting targeting medium enterprises could be most effective going forward.
• Prior experience and organisational values are key factors that increase interest in initiatives. Interest is also stronger among those with prior experience compared to those with no experience engaging people with disabilities in the workplace. This strengthens even further among those who’ve had prior experience AND believe inclusivity and diversity is important to the business. This confirms that perceived importance is a key driver of future interest.
• While many businesses would consider a range of options to engage, uncertainty is prevalent for all initiatives. 2 in 5 are open to learning more about employing or engaging people with disabilities. A similar proportion are willing to procure goods or services off social enterprises that employ people with disabilities. However, around one third are unsure if their business would be willing. Those with prior experience to disability employment are more likely to be open and willing to all initiatives compared to those with no prior experience.
• Larger businesses, those with prior experience employing people with a disability, those who say inclusivity and diversity is important to them and younger (and particularly female) business owners were the key groups who were more likely to say they would be open to
  • learning more about employing or engaging people with disabilities
  • procuring goods or services off social enterprise businesses that employ people with disabilities
  • offering short work experience opportunities for people with disabilities
  • creating a role tailored for a person with disability to provide an opportunity in their business

3

Motivators and Barriers:

• The top motivators for (what?) are creating a positive workplace culture, and access to government incentives or support. However, no single motivator stands out strongly, each appeals to at least 1 in 5 SMEs and 1 in 5 indicated that none of the motivators offered would be enough to drive them to employ or engage someone with a disability. Some motivators are particularly prevalent among specific industries.
• Surveyed motivators included:
  • Positive workplace culture
  • Access to government incentives or support
  • Aligning with company values and social responsibility
  • Expanding talent pool and business diversity
  • Unique problem-solving skills
  • Improved retention and reduced turnover
  • Customer or industry expectations
• The perception of a lack of suitable roles within the business is the standout barrier for over half of surveyed SMEs. This barrier is even more pronounced among regional businesses, where almost 7 in 10 see it as an obstacle. Other key barriers include concerns about the cost or feasibility of workplace modifications and a perceived lack of knowledge or experience in employing people with disabilities.
• When asked what support or resources would make it easier for businesses to employ or engage people with disabilities, financial support was most commonly mentioned including suggestions such as financial aid, government funding, incentives, and subsidised training. Other suggestions included more support services, or external resources to lean on, clearer policies or more training and workshops.

Summary:

• Inclusivity and diversity matter – especially among younger, female-led businesses, and businesses with prior experience employing people with disabilities.
• Confidence is low – most businesses feel only somewhat confident or not confident about hiring a person with disability, especially in regional areas and in small businesses.
• Prior exposure makes a difference – businesses that have engaged someone with a disability before are more willing and better equipped to do it again.
• Business size plays a part – larger businesses (20+ employees) are more confident, better resourced, and more likely to have policies or infrastructure in place.
• Industry differences are real – community services, education, and hospitality sectors are most receptive; construction, manufacturing, and resource industries present more barriers due to physical job demands and a perceived lack of relevant roles.
• There’s a big opportunity, but small businesses need a push – about half of businesses have no experience yet and many express concerns around job suitability, cost, and lack of knowledge.

4

ATTACHMENT 4

The Western Australian Equal Opportunity Commission

The Western Australian Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC) investigates and endeavours to conciliate allegations of discrimination based on one or more grounds of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) (the Act) including disability discrimination (termed “Impairment” in the Act).

A complaint must be in writing and can be in a person’s first language. The incident or incidents included in a complaint must have occurred less than 12 months before the complaint is lodged.

In some circumstances, the Commissioner may consider if conciliation can help to resolve a complaint and a conciliation conference may be organised so the parties can participate. If a complaint is not conciliated and has not been dismissed by the Commissioner, it is referred to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) with assistance from the Commissioner. If a complaint has been dismissed, the complainant can have the complaint referred to the SAT but is not assisted by the Commissioner.

As laws alone do not end intolerance, prejudice and discrimination in our community, education is a vital part of the EOC’s function. Community events, education, training sessions, seminars, workshops and papers are regularly presented by EOC staff. These seek to enhance understanding of the principles of equal opportunity, as well as increase recognition of the provisions contained in the Act.

Summary of the complaints made to the EOC from 2020-21 to 2024-25.

Percentage of complaints related to disability discrimination:

Total complaints on all subjects	2,304
Complaints made related to disability	558
Percentage of complaints related to disability	24.21%

The complaints related to disability covered:

48.52%	Physical impairments
29.85%	Mental health/psychosocial conditions
10.95%	Intellectual impairments
4.1%	Vision and hearing impairments
2.97%	Imputed impairments

The main areas where disability complaints occurred:

1

50.74%	Employment
29.02%	Goods, services and facilities
5.17%	Access to Places and Vehicles
5.1%	Accommodation
3%	Education

The most common outcomes of EOC Conciliation regarding complaints were:

31.2%	Monetary settlement
29.06%	Apology
14.17%	Staff education/training
14.08%	Respondent explanation accepted
9.13%	Policy change

Percentage of enquiries related to disability discrimination:

Total enquiries on all subjects	5,735
Enquiries made related to disability	1,390
Percentage of enquiries related to disability	24.24%

The most common areas of enquiries (not disability-specific):

40.05%	Employment
17.5%	Goods, services and facilities
4.42%	Access to Places and Vehicles
3.88%	Education
3.68%	Accommodation

Examples of disability topics specifically mentioned:

• Workplace adjustment denials
• Job application discrimination
• Communication barriers
• Concerns about differential treatment due to physical, psychological, or sensory impairments
• Blocked ACROD (accessible) parking bays
• Telecommunications access issues
• Guide dog discrimination
• Housing discrimination

2