National Disability Services Submission: Disability Discrimination Act Review
1
About National Disability Services
National Disability Services (NDS™) is Australia’s peak body for disability service organisations, and Australia’s biggest and most diverse network of disability service providers. Our valued members collectively operate several thousand services for more than 300,000 Australians with disability and employ a workforce of more than 100,000 people.
NDS is committed to a sustainable and diverse disability service sector, underpinned by the provision of high-quality, evidence-based practices and supports that strengthen, safeguard and provide greater choice for people with disability in Australia.
NDS has a longstanding commitment to supporting the mobility, independence, and community participation of people with disability. As the manager of the Australian Disability Parking Scheme in Western Australia (known as the ACROD Parking Program), NDS directly supports thousands of people with severe mobility restrictions or who are legally blind to access their communities. The ACROD Parking Program provides free parking permits, enabling eligible individuals to use accessible parking bays and thereby overcome significant barriers to participation in everyday life.
2
Contents
Access to Premises: The everyday reality of accessible parking and other infrastructure . 17
3
Executive summary
National Disability Services (NDS) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA). As Australia’s peak body for non-government disability service organisations, NDS supports reforms that strengthen protections against discrimination, promote inclusion, and align with Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
NDS recognises that disability discrimination may be compounded by other forms of disadvantage, such as those based on race, gender, or cultural background. An intersectional approach is essential to ensure the DDA protects all people with disability, particularly those who experience multiple and overlapping forms of discrimination.
This submission makes recommendations across four priority areas identified through member consultation and policy analysis:
-
Definition of disability: advocating for an updated definition that aligns with contemporary understandings and the social model of disability.
-
Positive duty to eliminate discrimination: supporting the introduction of a proactive obligation on duty holders to prevent discrimination.
-
Duty to provide adjustments: recommending the removal of the term “reasonable” to simplify and clarify obligations.
-
Employment-related provisions: proposing amendments to promote inclusive recruitment and workplace practices.
In our role as the manager of the ACROD Parking Program we also make specific recommendations related to accessible parking.
NDS supports reforms that modernise the DDA, clarify obligations, and shift the framework from reactive enforcement to proactive inclusion. Reforms need to be accompanied by appropriate resourcing, education, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure they are effective and sustainable.
4
Introduction
National Disability Services (NDS) is dedicated to advancing the rights of people with disability. This submission reaffirms NDS’s commitment to this cause and acknowledges the foundational role of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA). We see this as an opportunity to modernise the DDA in alignment with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (the Disability Royal Commission). By doing so, we can ensure that the rights and opportunities for people with disability are not only protected but also enhanced in a contemporary context.
Scope of submission
This submission by NDS aims to contribute to the review of the DDA. As Australia’s peak body for non-government disability service organisations, NDS supports reforms that strengthen protections against discrimination, promote inclusion, and align with Australia’s obligations under the CRPD. This submission focuses on four priority areas identified through member consultation and policy analysis:
-
Definition of disability
-
Positive duty to eliminate discrimination
-
Duty to provide adjustments
-
Employment-related provisions.
Additionally, this submission discusses accessible parking as an important factor supporting social and economic participation. It provides specific recommendations regarding the role of the DDA in improving access to premises through accessible parking.
NDS believes that these reforms will modernise the DDA, clarify obligations, and shift the framework from reactive enforcement to proactive inclusion. Reforms need to be accompanied by appropriate resourcing, education, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure they are effective and sustainable.
5
Definition of disability
The definition of disability in the DDA is not just a technical clause—it is the gateway to protection. It determines who is covered, how discrimination is understood, and whether the law reflects contemporary values. While the current definition is legally broad, it is conceptually and linguistically outdated. Reforming it is essential to ensure the DDA remains fit-for-purpose in 2025 and beyond.
It is also important to acknowledge that disability may intersect with other forms of disadvantage, compounding discrimination. While the social model emphasises societal barriers, it does not deny the reality or impact of impairments. A comprehensive definition must reflect both the presence of impairment and the role of environmental and attitudinal barriers in shaping disabling experiences.
Why reform is needed
The DDA’s current definition, drafted in 1992, was intentionally expansive. It includes physical, intellectual, psychiatric, sensory, neurological, and learning disabilities, as well as disfigurement and the presence of disease organisms. It also covers disabilities that exist, previously existed, may exist in future, or are imputed. This breadth has been upheld by courts and is widely seen as a strength.
The language employed in this context conveys a medicalised and deficit-focused perspective on disability. These descriptors are now considered outdated and may carry stigmatising connotations. It is recommended that such terminology be revised or replaced with neutral and respectful alternatives to promote inclusivity.
It is critical that any definition of disability continues to recognise the role of impairment, as distinct from disability itself. The social model does not deny the existence or impact of impairment but rather situates disability as arising from the interaction between impairment and societal barriers. This distinction is essential to ensure that the DDA captures the full range of disabling experiences without conflating impairment with disability.
6
Moreover, the conceptual framing of disability in the DDA does not align with the social and human rights models now embedded in Australia’s policy landscape. Since ratifying the CRPD, Australia has embraced the understanding that disability arises from the interaction between impairments and societal barriers. The CRPD defines disability as an evolving concept, shaped by environmental and attitudinal obstacles to participation.
The Disability Royal Commission and the Attorney-General’s Department have both recognised that the DDA’s definition must be updated to reflect lived experience and modern understandings. This includes recognising psychosocial and neurodiverse disabilities, fluctuating and episodic conditions, and the disabling impact of inaccessible systems and attitudes.
Stakeholders spanning the disability sector, legal field and government largely support updating the definition of disability in the DDA. Advocates stress the importance of framing disability as a natural aspect of human diversity rather than a deficit, calling for rights-based language that rejects outdated notions of pity or tragedy. Service providers, such as NDS members, favour a definition that reflects real lived experience, maintains broad protection, and supports consistent compliance.
What the new definition should include
A modernised definition should retain the legal breadth of the current DDA while reframing its language and conceptual basis. The new definition should:
-
Affirm the social model of disability: disability should be defined as arising from the interaction between impairments and barriers in society. This framing shifts the focus from individual deficits to systemic exclusion.
-
Use respectful, contemporary language: choose neutral phrases that reflect the preferred terminology of people with disability and help reduce stigma.
-
Include all forms of disability: the definition must explicitly cover physical, sensory, intellectual, psychosocial, neurological, and cognitive conditions. It should also include disabilities that are temporary, episodic, imputed, or may arise in future.
7
-
Ensure consistency across jurisdictions: harmonising the DDA’s definition with state and territory laws will reduce confusion for service providers and duty holders. This is especially important for organisations operating nationally.
-
Remain inclusive and expansive: any reform must not narrow the scope of protection. The current coverage of past, future and imputed disabilities must be retained. The CRPD’s reference to “long-term impairments” should not be imported literally, as it risks excluding people with short-term or episodic conditions.
Recommendations
The definition of disability is the foundation of the DDA. It determines who is protected and how discrimination is understood. NDS strongly supports amending the definition to align with the CRPD, and to remove outdated, deficit-based language that no longer reflects contemporary understandings of disability.
Recommendation one: The DDA defines disability using a two-part description.
That includes:
-
Scope clause: “Disability includes physical, sensory, intellectual, psychosocial, neurological or cognitive impairments or conditions, whether permanent, temporary, episodic, imputed or anticipated.”
-
Social model clause: “Disability results from the interaction between impairments and barriers in society that hinder full and equal participation.”
This formulation retains the DDA’s expansive coverage while embedding a rights-based, inclusive understanding of disability. It reflects legal precedent, aligns with international obligations, and resonates with the lived experience of Australians with disability.
Positive duty
Introducing a positive duty to eliminate discrimination is one of the most transformative proposals in the DDA Review. It shifts the legal framework from reactive enforcement—
8
where individuals must lodge complaints—to proactive responsibility, requiring duty holders to take reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent discrimination before it occurs.
The Disability Royal Commission recommended a broad positive duty that applies to all duty holders under the DDA—public and private—and covers all forms of disability discrimination, including harassment and victimisation. This goes beyond the narrower workplace-focused duty in the Sex Discrimination Act (1984) (SDA), recognising that discrimination occurs across all areas of public life: education, services, accommodation, transport, and government programs.
Furthermore, positive duty must extend to the built environment, ensuring public and private infrastructure is accessible and inclusive. While the Premises Standards under the DDA aim to support access, enforcement is reactive and inconsistent. Many buildings and facilities become inaccessible over time due to poor maintenance or changes in use.
Embedding access within a positive duty would require duty holders—such as councils, developers, and service providers—to proactively maintain and improve accessibility. This includes ensuring compliance with standards and addressing barriers in public spaces. It shifts responsibility from individuals to organisations and aligns with the CRPD’s principles of universal design and progressive realisation.
The Issues Paper supports this direction, proposing that any person or organisation currently prohibited from discriminating under the DDA should also be obliged to take proactive steps to prevent discrimination. This includes employers, service providers, educational institutions, clubs, banks, insurers, and government agencies.
There is widespread support across various sectors for the introduction of a universal positive duty to address discrimination and promote inclusion. This support is grounded in the belief that such a duty should be comprehensive, clearly defined, and accompanied by practical guidance and appropriate resources. Stakeholders recognise the importance of consistency with existing discrimination laws and emphasise the need for reasonable implementation measures tailored to different organisations’ capacities.
9
Considerations for implementation
To realise a positive duty and deliver on clearer adjustments for disability inclusion, organisations will need to embark on several crucial steps. First, a comprehensive review of current practices is essential. This means assessing existing policies, developing robust Disability Action Plans, and investing in staff training to build awareness and competence. Ensuring accessibility—both physically and through organisational procedures—will require upfront resources, but these investments are consistent with current Disability Standards and will position organisations for long-term success.
Small businesses, while facing their own administrative hurdles, are not excluded. The system’s proportionality principle guarantees fairness, expecting smaller entities to take reasonable, scaled steps appropriate to their capacity. There are no broad exemptions; every duty holder has a role to play, albeit tailored to their circumstances.
Proactive compliance will require ongoing monitoring. Organisations must create mechanisms for continual improvement, monitoring the effectiveness of their inclusive practices and responding to emerging needs. By addressing compliance early, organisations can reduce the likelihood of complaints and costly litigation, saving time and money.
Workplace transformation will hinge on fostering an inclusive culture. Leadership must commit to driving change, staff must be engaged, and the organisation must embrace continuous learning. Clear expectations rooted in legal certainty will help guide these efforts, supporting broader ESG goals and building a more positive environment for all.
On the matter of adjustments, implementation will require a shift in language and practice. Removing the word “reasonable” from “reasonable adjustments” means that organisations must consider all possible adjustments, up to the point of unjustifiable hardship. A standalone duty to make such adjustments would apply across all settings—not just employment or education—supporting clarity and simplicity in obligations. Organisations will need to establish clear processes for identifying, evaluating, and implementing adjustments, so that inclusion is easy to understand and to put into action.
10
Implementation will take leadership, planning, dedicated resources, and an ongoing commitment to equity. Organisations must be willing to evolve, invest, and engage every level of staff in the pursuit of genuine inclusion, and be supported to do so, to meet both the spirit and the requirements of these important reforms.
Lessons from the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (SDA) positive duty
Recent reforms to the SDA mean employers and businesses must now take active steps to stop sex discrimination and harassment. The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is responsible for making sure these rules are followed by sending out notices and carrying out investigations.
As organisations and policymakers consider the introduction of a positive duty to eliminate discrimination, it is valuable to reflect on the experience of implementing similar requirements under the SDA. The recent reforms to the SDA provide a practical reference point for what is possible and what challenges may arise. By examining these developments, we can draw important insights that inform how a positive duty under the DDA might be shaped, rolled out, and supported across Australian workplaces and communities.
Key lessons include:
- Guidance and education are essential: duty holders need practical tools to understand and meet their obligations.
- Flexibility must be built in: the “reasonable and proportionate” standard allows obligations to be scaled to the size and capacity of the duty holder.
- Regulatory oversight matters: the AHRC must be adequately resourced to monitor compliance and support implementation. Enforcement should follow a graduated approach—education first, enforcement if necessary.
- To mitigate unintended consequences, guidance should be framed using strengths-based messaging. This will help prevent fear or hesitancy among employers and service providers, ensuring that the duty promotes inclusion rather than discouraging engagement.
11
Recommendations
NDS strongly supports the introduction of a positive duty under the DDA that applies to all duty holders—employers, service providers, public authorities, and any entity currently prohibited from discriminating under the Act. This duty must be universal, proactive, and enforceable, shifting the framework from reactive complaints to preventative responsibility.
To ensure the duty is effective and equitable, NDS recommends the following:
Recommendation two: Legislate a universal duty across all domains
Amend the DDA to introduce a positive duty that applies to all duty holders across employment, education, services, accommodation, transport, and public programs. Ensure the duty covers all forms of disability discrimination, including harassment and victimisation.
Recommendation three: Provide clear and practical guidance
- Develop sector-specific guidance materials, including:
- Templates for Disability Action Plans
- Accessibility audit tools
- Sample policies and procedures.
- Ensure guidance is tailored to different organisational sizes and contexts, including community services, small businesses, and regional providers.
Recommendation four: Fund capacity building and training
- Establish a national implementation support program to:
- Deliver training on inclusive practices and legal obligations
- Build organisational capability to meet the duty
- Support leadership development in disability inclusion.
12
- Prioritise support for small and regional organisations, recognising their unique challenges and resource constraints.
Recommendation five: Resource the AHRC to enforce the duty.
- Provide the AHRC with sufficient funding and powers to:
- educate duty holders
- monitor compliance
- issue compliance notices and conduct investigations where necessary.
- Adopt a graduated enforcement model, beginning with education and escalating to enforcement only when required.
- In addition, consider establishing a statutory authority, like the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, to oversee and support the implementation of positive duty obligations under the DDA. This agency could provide sector-specific guidance, monitor compliance, collect data, and promote best practice in disability inclusion across all domains, working in partnership with the AHRC.
Recommendation six: Mitigate unintended consequences through strengths-based messaging
- Frame the duty as an opportunity to improve service quality, reduce complaints, and build inclusive communities.
- Promote the benefits of inclusion—such as improved staff retention, customer satisfaction, and community trust—to counter employer hesitancy.
- Encourage government and sector leaders to publicly endorse the duty and model inclusive practices.
Adjustments (formerly “Reasonable Adjustments”)
Establishing a standalone duty to provide adjustments is a critical reform proposed in the DDA Review. From the perspective of NDS this change is essential to ensuring people with
13
disability can access the supports they need without unnecessary legal complexity or delay.
Currently, the framing of “reasonable adjustments” has led to confusion and inconsistent application. Courts have interpreted the term to mean all adjustments must be made unless they impose unjustifiable hardship—rendering “reasonable” legally redundant. However, many duty holders continue to apply a subjective test, mistakenly believing they can decide whether an adjustment is justified based on their own views or resources.
The Disability Royal Commission has recommended removing the word “reasonable” and introducing a standalone duty to make adjustments unless doing so would impose unjustifiable hardship. This duty would apply across all areas covered by the DDA, including employment, education, services, accommodation, transport, access to premises, clubs, sport, and public programs. It would treat the failure to provide an adjustment as a breach of the law, rather than requiring it to be linked to a broader discrimination claim.
NDS supports this reform to clarify obligations, simplify enforcement, and align Australian law with international standards such as Article 5 of the CRPD, which mandates reasonable accommodation as an immediate obligation.
Considerations for implementation
To ensure the standalone duty is effective and equitable, NDS emphasises the need for clear guidance and practical support. This includes:
- Clear guidance on unjustifiable hardship: duty holders must understand how to assess hardship objectively, with transparent criteria and examples.
- Consultation with the person with disability: this must be a required factor in hardship assessments, ensuring that decisions are informed by lived experience.
- Support mechanisms for implementation: particular attention must be given to regional and remote areas, where resources and infrastructure may be limited.
Organisations will need to establish clear processes for identifying, evaluating, and implementing adjustments. This includes staff training, documentation, and leadership
14
commitment to inclusive practice. While some employers may be concerned about increased obligations, guidance will clarify that the legal requirement remains unchanged: adjustments must be made unless they cause unjustifiable hardship.
The proportionality principle must operate in ways that ensure fairness, with expectations scaled to the size and capacity of each organisation. There are no broad exemptions—every duty holder has a role to play.
Recommendations
NDS recommends the following actions to support the introduction of a standalone duty to provide adjustments:
Recommendation seven: Establish a clear and enforceable duty to provide adjustments
- Remove the term “reasonable” from the DDA and replace it with “adjustments” to align language with legal interpretation and reduce confusion for duty holders.
- Legislate a standalone duty to provide adjustments across all domains covered by the DDA—employment, education, services, accommodation, transport, access to premises, clubs, sport, and public programs.
- Provide clear guidance on unjustifiable hardship, including practical tools for assessment and a requirement to consult with the person with disability.
- Support implementation through targeted capacity-building initiatives, with a focus on small, regional, and community-based organisations.
Employment
Employment remains one of the most critical areas where people with disability face systemic barriers. The DDA provisions relating to “inherent requirements” and workplace adjustments are currently insufficient to drive genuine inclusion. Reform in this area is essential to ensure fair, transparent, and inclusive employment practices.
15
The Disability Royal Commission recommended strengthening the DDA by requiring employers to consult with people with disability and to consider the nature and extent of adjustments already made or available before making employment decisions. These changes would ensure decisions are evidence-based, reduce reliance on assumptions or stereotypes, and empower people with disability to participate in discussions about their capabilities and needs.
The current exception for “inherent requirements” lacks clarity and is often used to justify exclusion without proper consideration of adjustments. The DDA does not define the term, relying instead on case law, which has led to inconsistent application. Employers are not required to specify inherent requirements in job descriptions or to disclose whether adjustments will be made—further discouraging inclusive hiring.
NDS supports codifying the concept of inherent requirements in the DDA. This should include consideration of:
- the essential outcomes of the position
- whether tasks are essential or can be redistributed
- whether adjustments could enable the person to perform the role.
Recommendations
NDS maintains that substantial change is needed to address the systemic barriers faced by people with disability in employment. Current provisions under the DDA have not delivered true inclusion, particularly regarding the definition and application of “inherent requirements” and workplace adjustments. Informed by these concerns, NDS welcomes reforms that will foster fair, transparent, and inclusive workplaces across Australia.
Recommendation eight: Strengthen inclusive employment obligations.
- Define “inherent requirements” in the DDA, including essential outcomes, redistributable tasks, and the role of adjustments.
16
- Require employers to consult with prospective and current employees with disability and consider adjustments already made or available before making employment decisions.
- Develop and disseminate practical guidance for employers on assessing inherent requirements and conducting meaningful consultation.
- Integrate reforms with existing employment supports.
- Fund capacity-building initiatives, prioritising small and regional employers, to support implementation and foster inclusive workplace practices.
Access to Premises: The everyday reality of accessible parking and other infrastructure
For many people with disability, the journey to inclusion begins—and sometimes ends—in the car park. Accessible parking is not a luxury; it is a fundamental enabler of participation in community life. Yet, despite clear legislative intent under Section 23 of the DDA, the reality on the ground often falls short.
Accessible parking bays are required to meet planning and building codes at the time of construction. However, once the initial compliance box is ticked, ongoing maintenance and enforcement are frequently neglected. Paint fades, signage disappears, and bays are blocked and made unusable or quietly repurposed for general use. When advocates or individuals raise concerns, they are too often met with a bureaucratic shrug: “It’s private land, out of our hands.” Local councils cite a lack of enforcement power, and building owners may be unresponsive unless public pressure mounts.
The consequences are not abstract. When accessible parking is unavailable or unusable, people with disability are effectively excluded from accessing shops, services, and community spaces. The DDA’s complaints-based model places the burden on individuals to seek redress—often through lengthy and complex processes that rarely deliver timely or systemic change. In some cases, the only effective lever has been media exposure, which is neither sustainable nor fair.
17
This is not just a matter of inconvenience; it is a question of rights and dignity. The DDA was designed to ensure equal access to premises, yet the lack of enforceable mechanisms for ongoing compliance means that rights exist more in theory than in practice. The current system relies on the goodwill of property owners and the persistence of advocates, rather than clear, enforceable obligations.
Why NDS is interested in accessible parking
NDS has a longstanding commitment to supporting the mobility, independence, and community participation of people with disability. As the manager of the ACROD Parking Program in Western Australia, NDS directly supports thousands of people with severe mobility restrictions or who are legally blind to access their communities. The ACROD Parking Program provides free parking permits, enabling eligible individuals to use accessible parking bays and thereby overcome significant barriers to participation in everyday life.
Accessible parking it is a critical enabler of social and economic inclusion. Without reliable access to appropriately located and maintained parking, people with disability may be excluded from employment, education, healthcare, and community activities. NDS’s experience administering the ACROD Parking Program has highlighted both the positive impact of accessible parking and the ongoing challenges faced by permit holders, including inadequate supply, poor maintenance, and lack of enforcement.
NDS’s interest in this issue is therefore both practical and principled:
- practical, because we see firsthand the difference that accessible parking makes in the lives of people with disability, and
- principled, because equitable access to premises—including parking—is fundamental to the rights, dignity, and full participation of all Australians with disability.
The same approach should be extended to other elements of accessible infrastructure, such as ramps, elevators, lifts, doorways, pathways, navigation aids, and restrooms. Without persistent and ongoing focus on maintaining compliance and adequacy of this
18
infrastructure, some of its elements can often get neglected or fall into disrepair—becoming partially functional, obstructed, or entirely unusable.
Case Study:
In Western Australia, advocates spent eight weeks seeking repairs to a broken accessible toilet and an unusable parking bay at a shopping centre. Despite repeated approaches to the centre, council, and legal aid, no action was taken until the issue was raised in the media—at which point repairs were completed within hours. This highlights the need for clear, enforceable obligations and effective penalties for non-compliance, rather than relying on individual complaints or media intervention.
Recommendation nine: Strengthening access to premises through accessible parking
NDS recommends that the DDA Review:
- Explicitly recognise accessible infrastructure as a core component of access to premises under Section 23 of the DDA, ensuring that its provision, maintenance, and enforcement are treated as essential for equal participation.
- Legislate clear, ongoing obligations for both public and private landowners and operators to provide and maintain accessible infrastructure, regardless of when the premises were constructed or last renovated.
- Establish practical enforcement mechanisms—including the introduction of fines or penalties for non-compliance—so that breaches can be addressed promptly and effectively, without requiring an individual complaint or protracted legal action.
- Provide comprehensive guidance and support for duty holders, including councils, building owners, and operators, to clarify their responsibilities and outline best practice for accessible infrastructure provision and maintenance.
- Create transparent and accessible pathways for reporting and resolving issues related to accessible infrastructure, ensuring that people with disability and advocates can raise concerns and see timely action.
19
By implementing these recommendations, the DDA will move from a reactive, complaints-based approach to a proactive, rights-based system—ensuring that access to premises is real, reliable, and enduring for all Australians with disability.
Advancing human rights through legal reform
The Disability Royal Commission’s final report calls for a transformation in how Australia upholds the rights of people with disability. Its recommendations emphasise autonomy, legal capacity, supported decision-making, and the right to live free from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. These principles are grounded in the CRPD, and they demand a coordinated reform effort across multiple legal and policy frameworks.
NDS supports the development of a national human rights framework that gives practical effect to these principles. NDS has expressed broad support for the introduction of a Disability Rights Act, while noting that its scope, interaction with existing legislation, and implications for service providers require careful consideration and co-design. The DDA must be understood as part of this broader reform landscape. Strengthening the DDA is essential—but it must be accompanied by reforms to other laws and systems that shape the lives of people with disability.
One area of concern is the continued use of default non-publication provisions—commonly referred to as “gag laws”—in most Australian jurisdictions. These provisions prevent individuals under guardianship, administration or mental health orders from publicly identifying themselves or sharing their experiences without prior tribunal approval. While intended to protect, they often operate as blanket restrictions that suppress self-advocacy, limit transparency, and undermine the principles of open justice.
Recommendation 6.12 of the Disability Royal Commission calls for the repeal of these default confidentiality provisions and the adoption of targeted, discretionary safeguards. Tasmania’s 2024 reforms provide a practical example of how protective objectives can be maintained without silencing individuals. These reforms align with broader efforts to promote supported decision-making and recognise the legal capacity of people with disability.
20
NDS believes that people with disability should be empowered to make choices about their own lives, with support where needed. The persistence of gag laws runs counter to this approach, denying individuals the right to speak openly about their experiences and participate fully in public discourse.
In the context of the DDA review, it is important to consider how reforms to the Act might be complemented by a coordinated review of guardianship and administration legislation across all jurisdictions. Ensuring consistency with supported decision-making principles, legal capacity, and freedom of expression will be essential to realising the full intent of the DDA and the broader reform agenda emerging from the Royal Commission.
Conclusion
The DDA must evolve to reflect contemporary understandings of disability and discrimination. As Australia’s peak body for non-government disability service organisations, NDS strongly supports reforms that promote proactive inclusion, clarify legal obligations, and ensure the DDA is practical and enforceable across all settings.
The proposed reforms—introducing a positive duty to eliminate discrimination, establishing a standalone duty to provide adjustments, and strengthening inclusive employment provisions—represent a critical opportunity to modernise the DDA and align it with Australia’s commitments under the CRPD.
To ensure these reforms are effective and sustainable, NDS recommends targeted government investment in:
- Education and training to build awareness and capability across sectors.
- Accessible complaint pathways that empower individuals and reduce barriers to enforcement.
- Monitoring and reporting frameworks to support transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement.
21
NDS urges the Australian Government to work in partnership with the disability sector to implement these reforms in a way that is inclusive, equitable, and grounded in lived experience. With the right legislative changes and implementation supports, the DDA can become a powerful tool for advancing the rights, participation, and inclusion of people with disability across all areas of public life.
Contact
redacted
Deputy CEO/Director of Policy & Advocacy
National Disability Services
redacted
redacted
Friday, 31 October 2025
22